What Are People's Motivation To Outlaw Guns In The US?

Cosmo

Jason P wrote:

I don't want to ban guns but I sure want to restrict access. Each day I encounter my fellow citizens in passing by and I wouldn't trust the majority to safely operate a wiffle ball bat, less yet a handgun.

Testing and training need to be prerequisites to owning a handgun. Assault rifles should be banned from the general public. And high-capacity clips should be banned as well. In my opinion.

...
Agree.
Ever been to the Department of Motor Vehicles?
Would anyone feel safer if all of those people in line that owns or drives a car... carried a gun. Please, raise you hand.

blackredyellow

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

This thread isn't really going the way I intended. I would really like to hear people's ultimate motivations for banning guns.

most americans are not in favor of banning guns. that rumor is a right wing fear tactic to get out their vote.

True... different people want different levels of gun control, but you don't hear anyone (except in pro-gun strawmen arguments), actually want to outlaw all guns or take guns away from people.

But, I would guess for most people who want to restrict gun access, the motivation is safety. I'm not sure what else there would be (that isn't a crazy tin foil conspiracy theory thought up by paranoid gun-obsessed people).

I am a gun owner, so I guess that makes me "pro gun", but I see stories everyday where there are people who shouldn't own guns. How we as a society decides that, and weeds them out, I have no idea.


On this subject, with recent shootings, you keep hearing people say, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", basically disavowing any capability or power that the gun had in the situation, but then in the next breath, say that guns have the capacity to "keep our freedom" and "make us safer". How can it be so powerless in one situation, and so powerful in another?

DS1119

keeponrockin wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Is it safe to assume then you want guns banned because you feel it would save lives?

Overly simplistic.

What are your thoughts on the alcohol/cigarette self harm aspect of it?

I really don't think it's overly simplistic at all actually. I mean it seems people's concerns over guns is saving lives. Shouldn't they start higher on the list of things that may harm people than legally obtained weapons first?

JonnyPistachio

Cosmo wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I don't want to ban guns but I sure want to restrict access. Each day I encounter my fellow citizens in passing by and I wouldn't trust the majority to safely operate a wiffle ball bat, less yet a handgun.

Testing and training need to be prerequisites to owning a handgun. Assault rifles should be banned from the general public. And high-capacity clips should be banned as well. In my opinion.

...
Agree.
Ever been to the Department of Motor Vehicles?
Would anyone feel safer if all of those people in line that owns or drives a car... carried a gun. Please, raise you hand.

Wait, you mean they dont give out free guns at the DMV in your town?

vant0037

DS1119 wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Is it safe to assume then you want guns banned because you feel it would save lives?

Overly simplistic.

What are your thoughts on the alcohol/cigarette self harm aspect of it?

I really don't think it's overly simplistic at all actually. I mean it seems people's concerns over guns is saving lives. Shouldn't they start higher on the list of things that may harm people than legally obtained weapons first?

DS...you've clearly got a point in all this (starting the thread with an unproven assumption, suggesting reasons etc), which is fine. But just say it already. You think people who want to ban guns want to do so because X, Y, or Z, and you obviously think there's something faulty with that OR there's some other point you want to make. Again, that's all fine and good, but just spit it out already. What are you trying to get at!

DS1119

vant0037 wrote:

DS...you've clearly got a point in all this (starting the thread with an unproven assumption, suggesting reasons etc), which is fine. But just say it already. You think people who want to ban guns want to do so because X, Y, or Z, and you obviously think there's something faulty with that OR there's some other point you want to make. Again, that's all fine and good, but just spit it out already. What are you trying to get at!

I'm just waiting for someone to ultimately give me the reason they feel why legal owned guns should be banned and if that ever happened what they feel will be the result?

fife

DS1119 wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Is it safe to assume then you want guns banned because you feel it would save lives?

Overly simplistic.

What are your thoughts on the alcohol/cigarette self harm aspect of it?

I really don't think it's overly simplistic at all actually. I mean it seems people's concerns over guns is saving lives. Shouldn't they start higher on the list of things that may harm people than legally obtained weapons first?

if you look at it, there are more restrictions around smoking than ever before. you are not allowed to smoke indoors now. You have to be 19 to buy smokes.

do you find it weird that people can't smoke in stores but in certain states people can have a concealed weapon.

fife

DS1119 wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

DS...you've clearly got a point in all this (starting the thread with an unproven assumption, suggesting reasons etc), which is fine. But just say it already. You think people who want to ban guns want to do so because X, Y, or Z, and you obviously think there's something faulty with that OR there's some other point you want to make. Again, that's all fine and good, but just spit it out already. What are you trying to get at!

I'm just waiting for someone to ultimately give me the reason they feel why legal owned guns should be banned and if that ever happened what they feel will be the result?

the reason you are not getting what you are looking for is because no-one wants to ban guns. we just want more restrictions.

Go Beavers

Cosmo wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I don't want to ban guns but I sure want to restrict access. Each day I encounter my fellow citizens in passing by and I wouldn't trust the majority to safely operate a wiffle ball bat, less yet a handgun.

Testing and training need to be prerequisites to owning a handgun. Assault rifles should be banned from the general public. And high-capacity clips should be banned as well. In my opinion.

...
Agree.
Ever been to the Department of Motor Vehicles?
Would anyone feel safer if all of those people in line that owns or drives a car... carried a gun. Please, raise you hand.

People do accept a higher level of enforcement and monitoring with regards to driving, but why if more enforcement, regulation, and monitoring of guns is proposed, the alarm is sounded and now the dictatorial government is on its way to banning guns?

JonnyPistachio

I just clicked he local news site a minute ago and (sadly) here are the top three stories:

Florida concealed weapons permits soon to reach 1 million milestone, the most in the USA
http://www.postonpolitics.com/2012/12/f ... milestone/

Packing my damned bags! j/k, overall, this is a good article and does reflect on how most are responsible. But I doubt those numbers matter when you consider how many accidental shooting we have in FL. I swear I see 2-3 a month where some kid is accidentally shot

Fla man fatally shot roommate over dinner, Pissed at pork chop perparation
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/ap/ap/crim ... ner/nTTFy/

Woman tries to calm naked gunman before Palm Beach Shores police arrive
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/ ... g-i/nTS4p/
This man might be just a tad unbalanced.

Jason P

Go Beavers wrote:

People do accept a higher level of enforcement and monitoring with regards to driving, but why if more enforcement, regulation, and monitoring of guns is proposed, the alarm is sounded and now the dictatorial government is on its way to banning guns?

I think it's because the gun lobby has watched the demise of the tobacco lobby over the last several decades.

I used to be able to buy a pack of smokes from a vending machine while waiting in line for my food at Dairy Queen when I was a kid. Now I can get a citation if I light up a smoke within 20 feet of the same Dairy Queen.

The gun lobby is fighting to avoid what would the first chink in the armor that could lead to their eventual downfall and loss of power. They are very zealous and powerful ... thus you can hear the crickets in the White House whenever there is a shooting.

DS1119

fife wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

DS...you've clearly got a point in all this (starting the thread with an unproven assumption, suggesting reasons etc), which is fine. But just say it already. You think people who want to ban guns want to do so because X, Y, or Z, and you obviously think there's something faulty with that OR there's some other point you want to make. Again, that's all fine and good, but just spit it out already. What are you trying to get at!

I'm just waiting for someone to ultimately give me the reason they feel why legal owned guns should be banned and if that ever happened what they feel will be the result?

the reason you are not getting what you are looking for is because no-one wants to ban guns. we just want more restrictions.

Because the restrictions are already there. How much more should they be restricted? Everyone points their fingers at the very few kooks that can actually get a legally obtained weapon. Why isn't there a call when someone kills someone while drinking and driving? Maybe instead of a simple 20 question test to get a license we should have a family background check. I mean it is a known fact that children born from a family with alcohol abuse tend to have alcohol abuse themselves. Perhaps a background check should be performed on everyone before someone can drive a car? I mean this about saving lives correct?

MotoDC

SK359828 wrote:

I was about to ask the opposite question.

I don't see the point, I guess. I've never owned a gun, never fired a gun, don't hunt, and never felt unsafe, whether I was living in the suburbs or the city. Plus I listened to a lot of PJ and 311 growing up.

Haha, Guns Are for Pussies!

I had a girl (friend) once who thought the song was a tribute to female genitalia...she thought the lyric was "Guns off for pussies". As in, fire your guns in the air if you like 'em. She was a riot.

MotoDC

Jason P wrote:

I don't want to ban guns but I sure want to restrict access. Each day I encounter my fellow citizens in passing by and I wouldn't trust the majority to safely operate a wiffle ball bat, less yet a handgun.

Testing and training need to be prerequisites to owning a handgun. Assault rifles should be banned from the general public. And high-capacity clips should be banned as well. In my opinion.

Hmm, interesting. Jason P, I never woulda guessed.

Also, "wiffle"? That can't be how you spell that, can it? Looks downright unAmerican spelled like that.

...well, fuck me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiffle_ball

MayDay10

Jason P wrote:

I don't want to ban guns but I sure want to restrict access. Each day I encounter my fellow citizens in passing by and I wouldn't trust the majority to safely operate a wiffle ball bat, less yet a handgun.

Testing and training need to be prerequisites to owning a handgun. Assault rifles should be banned from the general public. And high-capacity clips should be banned as well. In my opinion.

This X100000000000

Cant even be discussed though because the ignoramouses bring out the straw man

JonnyPistachio

DS1119 wrote:

Because the restrictions are already there. How much more should they be restricted? Everyone points their fingers at the very few kooks that can actually get a legally obtained weapon.

No they arent. Again, I can get online right now and buy a big fucking gun with no checks. And if waiting periods were just a little longer, you run the chance of exposing a person who is fucked in the head like Laughner, the AZ shooter, in the meantime. Also, if magazine capacities were a bit less, that gives people time to defend themselves. Laughner was apparently tackled by bystandards after he shot off 30+ rounds. A few short years ago, those magazines were limited to 12 or something I believe. There are some small things that could be changed that would hardly affect the average gun owner, and just might prevent some from being victims.

the way I see it personally, it cant hurt to do these small things. If people are too fucking stubborn and selfish (or fearful) to compromise a bit, then I think we are just simply doomed.

fife

DS1119 wrote:

fife wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

DS...you've clearly got a point in all this (starting the thread with an unproven assumption, suggesting reasons etc), which is fine. But just say it already. You think people who want to ban guns want to do so because X, Y, or Z, and you obviously think there's something faulty with that OR there's some other point you want to make. Again, that's all fine and good, but just spit it out already. What are you trying to get at!

I'm just waiting for someone to ultimately give me the reason they feel why legal owned guns should be banned and if that ever happened what they feel will be the result?

the reason you are not getting what you are looking for is because no-one wants to ban guns. we just want more restrictions.

Because the restrictions are already there. How much more should they be restricted? Everyone points their fingers at the very few kooks that can actually get a legally obtained weapon. Why isn't there a call when someone kills someone while drinking and driving? Maybe instead of a simple 20 question test to get a license we should have a family background check. I mean it is a known fact that children born from a family with alcohol abuse tend to have alcohol abuse themselves. Perhaps a background check should be performed on everyone before someone can drive a car? I mean this about saving lives correct?[/quote]

I agree that we should feel outraged at people who drink and drive and hurt someone. Look what just happened this weekend with the cowboy player who was drunk and killed someone. that story was in all the news. I don't know about where you live but in Ontario Canada we have put major restrictions on drivers. if your a new driver you can't have any alcohol in your system. None at all no matter how old you are.

we have lower the speed limit, hell if your caught drunk driving the person serving you drinks can be fined for getting you drunk.

can you name me one restriction that anyone has placed on guns?

MayDay10

they should make a program where you can trade in your assault rifles for Silverados and Hummers.

DS1119

JonnyPistachio wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Because the restrictions are already there. How much more should they be restricted? Everyone points their fingers at the very few kooks that can actually get a legally obtained weapon.

No they arent. Again, I can get online right now and buy a big fucking gun with no checks. And if waiting periods were just a little longer, you run the chance of exposing a person who is fucked in the head like Laughner, the AZ shooter, in the meantime. Also, if magazine capacities were a bit less, that gives people time to defend themselves. Laughner was apparently tackled by bystandards after he shot off 30+ rounds. A few short years ago, those magazines were limited to 12 or something I believe. There are some small things that could be changed that would hardly affect the average gun owner, and just might prevent some from being victims.

the way I see it personally, it cant hurt to do these small things. If people are too fucking stubborn and selfish (or fearful) to compromise a bit, then I think we are just simply doomed.

You do realize an 8 year old can buy a car in this country correct?

fife

DS1119 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Because the restrictions are already there. How much more should they be restricted? Everyone points their fingers at the very few kooks that can actually get a legally obtained weapon.

No they arent. Again, I can get online right now and buy a big fucking gun with no checks. And if waiting periods were just a little longer, you run the chance of exposing a person who is fucked in the head like Laughner, the AZ shooter, in the meantime. Also, if magazine capacities were a bit less, that gives people time to defend themselves. Laughner was apparently tackled by bystandards after he shot off 30+ rounds. A few short years ago, those magazines were limited to 12 or something I believe. There are some small things that could be changed that would hardly affect the average gun owner, and just might prevent some from being victims.

the way I see it personally, it cant hurt to do these small things. If people are too fucking stubborn and selfish (or fearful) to compromise a bit, then I think we are just simply doomed.

You do realize an 8 year old can buy a car in this country correct?

you do realize that it might be harder for an 8 year old to hide that car unlike a gun which surprise surprise can be more hidden.