A serious question

otter

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

otter wrote:

push me and i will resist wrote:

I guess all I'm trying to say is this.

If people didn't have such easy access to guns, and there weren't so many guns out there, whether legally or illegally there probably wouldn't be so many problems.

1. I don't buy the "I need a gun for protection". That is a crock of shit.
2. Guns are meant for 1 thing.....pulling the trigger and shooting a bullet, either 1 at a time or a thousand in a second. Either way bullets do damage, whether a can, target or person.
3. Odds are if the gun laws are changed there will be change.

but guns are produced all over the world. Obviously if all of the sudden all guns disappeared nobody would be shot with a gun but that is not reality. And even if you stopped ALL gun sales right now what about all the guns out there now? It is true..."the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" so can we eliminate all bad guys? nope. evil exists

There's no doubt you would experience some growing pains, but just like the soldiers you are placing on a pedastal in the other thread that 'saved the world without anyone's help' according to you... sacrifices must be made sometimes.

Follow me here:

Imagine handguns and assault style rifles banned as well as the ammunition for these guns.

Imagine a buy-back program that gets some of the guns off the street (with no ammunition outside of illegal means... selling might look pretty good to some).

The guns that remain become useless once the existing ammunition caches are spent. People that attempt to acquire ammunition illegaly are outside of the law and run the risk of facing criminal consequences as a result.

Criminals that do keep their guns and find ammunition for them illegally may become a bit of a problem, but here's the thing: big time criminals with the means and money to purchase black market weapons and ammunition are not interested in invading your homes or shooting up kindergarten classes as much as they are protecting their industry from rivals. The only reason two-bit thugs have those guns right now are because they are cheap, abundant, and easy to get. How hard is that to understand?

For all other home invasions... you can use your legally owned 12 gauge shotgun to blast the intruder to pieces before they cross the threshold.

So... after 10 years give or take, your war on weapons will have been won. Just like the UK accomplished with only six homicides by gunfire and no kindergarten classes shot to death this past year. Wouldn't that be great? No 10,000 homicides by gunfire? If you could actually parallel the UK's example... you would experience- proportionately of course- 93% fewer homicides than your current rate!

Think of it... safe classrooms in 10 years. Worth it?

You know that cops in Britian used to not carry guns and now they do? Do you really think all the bullets would be used up in 10 years?

Do you think that if the government said "time to turn in your guns" everybody would? By definition the only people who would would be those who obey the law. There are so so many guns in this country even if half went away there would still be so so many guns in this country. Absolutely nothing would change. That's why any gun laws won't do a thing. It's meaningless. The only thing it would do is help politicians. That is the only reason they put this stuff in legislation, to get votes.

JimmyV

There are reasons to own a handgun (protection, defense) and there are reasons to own a hunting rifle (um...hunting). But there are no reasons to own an assault rifle. These should be banned and to do so would infringe not at all on the second amendment.

otter

JimmyV wrote:

There are reasons to own a handgun (protection, defense) and there are reasons to own a hunting rifle (um...hunting). But there are no reasons to own an assault rifle. These should be banned and to do so would infringe not at all on the second amendment.

What if someone wants one? Isn't that a reason too? What if instead of being called an assault rifle they called it an sunshine rifle? There is no reason to eat a twinky but we don't ban them.

Banning these guns won't save a single life all it will do is make some asshole politician a big hero to all the people who got scared by that same asshole politician.

JimmyV

otter wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

There are reasons to own a handgun (protection, defense) and there are reasons to own a hunting rifle (um...hunting). But there are no reasons to own an assault rifle. These should be banned and to do so would infringe not at all on the second amendment.

What if someone wants one? Isn't that a reason too? What if instead of being called an assault rifle they called it an sunshine rifle? There is no reason to eat a twinky but we don't ban them.

Banning these guns won't save a single life all it will do is make some asshole politician a big hero to all the people who got scared by that same asshole politician.

People want a lot of things that they cannot have.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

otter wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

There are reasons to own a handgun (protection, defense) and there are reasons to own a hunting rifle (um...hunting). But there are no reasons to own an assault rifle. These should be banned and to do so would infringe not at all on the second amendment.

What if someone wants one? Isn't that a reason too? What if instead of being called an assault rifle they called it an sunshine rifle? There is no reason to eat a twinky but we don't ban them.

Banning these guns won't save a single life all it will do is make some asshole politician a big hero to all the people who got scared by that same asshole politician.

this says it all. Jesus H Christ. :fp:

JonnyPistachio

JimmyV wrote:

There are reasons to own a handgun (protection, defense) and there are reasons to own a hunting rifle (um...hunting). But there are no reasons to own an assault rifle. These should be banned and to do so would infringe not at all on the second amendment.

very well said JimmyV

otter wrote:

Banning these guns won't save a single life

all speculation...very close minded. Nobody likes to answer when asked how many people in a crowded room a person could kill with a pistol vs. an AR-15. So the CT shooter would've killed exactly the same amount of people had be been unable to get a Bushmaster? :?

otter

JonnyPistachio wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

There are reasons to own a handgun (protection, defense) and there are reasons to own a hunting rifle (um...hunting). But there are no reasons to own an assault rifle. These should be banned and to do so would infringe not at all on the second amendment.

very well said JimmyV

otter wrote:

Banning these guns won't save a single life

all speculation...very close minded. Nobody likes to answer when asked how many people in a crowded room a person could kill with a pistol vs. an AR-15. So the CT shooter would've killed exactly the same amount of people had be been unable to get a Bushmaster? :?

The Fort Hood shooter used a handgun and so did the VA Tech nut. It makes no difference what kind of gun a crazy killer uses does it? I don't know if he would have killed more or less innocent and helpless people. Everybody is emotionally tied to this sad event but doesn't it make more sense to fix the problem rather than feeling all gooey inside because a new law was passed?
More laws are not the answer. I would say community is.

JonnyPistachio

otter wrote:

The Fort Hood shooter used a handgun and so did the VA Tech nut. It makes no difference what kind of gun a crazy killer uses does it?

It certainly does. its hard to say that a gun that is more efficient at spraying bullets like an AR-15, at faster rate wouldnt kill more people. of course it does/would. Thats what its designed for. If the FT hood guy or VA tech guy used an AR-15 I'd bet all the money in the world there'd been more casualties.

otter wrote:

I don't know if he would have killed more or less innocent and helpless people. Everybody is emotionally tied to this sad event but doesn't it make more sense to fix the problem rather than feeling all gooey inside because a new law was passed?
More laws are not the answer. I would say community is.

I agree community is part of the answer too. Has nothing to do with gooey...

otter

That's another reason why everybody is jumping on the new law band wagon: the media is using these words and phrases that scare the hell out of people like "spray bullets". I never shot a bushmaster but I know it is not a machine gun you have to pull the trigger to fire it one bullet at a time. Just like a 9mm but I would argue that you could fire a hand gun just as fast if not even faster than a rifle.

We have to look out for one an other and help people who are on the brink of losing it. That will save people not saying "okay, you can have this gun but not this one" because all guns are made for shooting.

JonnyPistachio

otter wrote:

That's another reason why everybody is jumping on the new law band wagon: the media is using these words and phrases that scare the hell out of people like "spray bullets". I never shot a bushmaster but I know it is not a machine gun you have to pull the trigger to fire it one bullet at a time. Just like a 9mm but I would argue that you could fire a hand gun just as fast if not even faster than a rifle.

We have to look out for one an other and help people who are on the brink of losing it. That will save people not saying "okay, you can have this gun but not this one" because all guns are made for shooting.

You can ignore the fact all day long that the bushmaster and AR-15 are designed to fire more bullets, with the purpose of speed, agility, and more killing than a handgun. thats the bottom line. Dance around it all you want.

otter

You're wrong about the VA Tech killer. He shot nearly every single person he came into contact with. I just read the story.

JonnyPistachio

otter wrote:

You're wrong about the VA Tech killer. He shot nearly every single person he came into contact with. I just read the story.

Fine...I dont know the details, maybe that is one instance...but I still say if he had an AR-15 he has a better chance to kill more people more quickly. fact.

again: You can ignore the fact all day long that the bushmaster and AR-15 are designed to fire more bullets, with the purpose of speed, agility, and more killing than a handgun. thats the bottom line. Dance around it all you want.

donnaruhl

You know when someone buy's a gun,They run a background check. Do they apply any psychiatric check's to the background of individual's? Or is that still Dr., Patient confidentiality ? And if not, I feel that something more should done with the process. I also feel that if a family has a mentally or emotionally unstable person living in the home, It should be a gun free zone. I have a cousin who is challenged,and when he was younger and would lose his temper,It would take up to four people to hold him down. God forbid,If he ever got a hold of a gun when he was angry. I don't believe that police officers should even have those assault riffle's,let alone the general public. A place for them is in the military, That's my opinion.

otter

donnaruhl wrote:

You know when someone buy's a gun,They run a background check. Do they apply any psychiatric check's to the background of individual's? Or is that still Dr., Patient confidentiality ? And if not, I feel that something more should done with the process. I also feel that if a family has a mentally or emotionally unstable person living in the home, It should be a gun free zone. I have a cousin who is challenged,and when he was younger and would lose his temper,It would take up to four people to hold him down. God forbid,If he ever got a hold of a gun when he was angry. I don't believe that police officers should even have those assault riffle's,let alone the general public. A place for them is in the military, That's my opinion.

Yeah, that's what I think too.

But don't you think that a person holding a pistol in each hand is just as dangerous as someone with a "assault" riffle?

If we took better care of those who are mentally unstable it would be safe for people to own freakin bazookas.

javis el errante

push me and i will resist wrote:

Can someone please explain to me why you need a gun?
Simple question, should be a simple answer.


Unless you are a hunter I see no need to have one.

The human being is the only mammal who goes hunting with a full stomach...

hedonist

javis el errante wrote:

push me and i will resist wrote:

Can someone please explain to me why you need a gun?
Simple question, should be a simple answer.


Unless you are a hunter I see no need to have one.

The human being is the only mammal who goes hunting with a full stomach...

To be fair, if people are hunting for food, they don't need to be hungry at the moment they're stocking up on and storing meat.

If we're talking trophy hunting, then I'm with you.

STAYSEA

JonnyPistachio wrote:

STAYSEA wrote:

Just bought a Shot GUN.. for Zombies and stuff. Too heavy to lift and I don't even know the combo to the safe..

My pepper spray (personal), is in my make-up bag... I'm the stupid one

Was there a background check when you bought that shotgun?

definitely. And you need a license.

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

push me and i will resist wrote:

Ok I'll ask it a different way. Why doesn't Canada have the same problems with guns as the United States?
Do we feel safe enough in our country not to feel the need to protect ourselves and family?
Maybe we have less crazy people in Canada that shoot people with assault rifles.

Maybe the US should have the same gun laws as Canada for a year and see if it changes anything.

Not sure. Perhaps Canada feels the protection that the US provides them. It's easy to have a calm feeling politically, which trickles to down to social behaviors, when you know the neighbors to your south will pretty much protect you just to protect our own interests. Perhaps it's because Canada is much more rural than the US. Perhaps it's the fact that Canada's total population is about 10% of the US. Perhaps it's the fact more people live in the state of California than in the entire country of Canada.


Apples and oranges.

Trust me, we do not have a lack of a gun violence problem because we feel protected by the US! On the contrary... lots of Canadians feel threatened by the US on many different levels, including having guns cross the border into our country.
I also don't think it's about population.
I think it is just a difference in culture. We don't like guns, we don't tend to get off on guns like many Americans seem to, we don't, of course, have the 2nd amendment encouraging people, we certainly don't have an NRA influencing our government, etc. The US has just grown a strong gun culture (fetish). The US also has a fairly violent and aggressive culture compared to Canada. The US is a war nation. Canada is a peacekeeping nation. Speaking in sweeping terms, of course, not on an individual basis. And just as a disclaimer, I am not anti-American at all. No nation is perfect. Canada has its own problems. All nations, and citizens of them, should work to fix their problems... in the US, the gun culture is one of the problems that need fixing IMO.

DS1119

PJ_Soul wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

push me and i will resist wrote:

Ok I'll ask it a different way. Why doesn't Canada have the same problems with guns as the United States?
Do we feel safe enough in our country not to feel the need to protect ourselves and family?
Maybe we have less crazy people in Canada that shoot people with assault rifles.

Maybe the US should have the same gun laws as Canada for a year and see if it changes anything.

Not sure. Perhaps Canada feels the protection that the US provides them. It's easy to have a calm feeling politically, which trickles to down to social behaviors, when you know the neighbors to your south will pretty much protect you just to protect our own interests. Perhaps it's because Canada is much more rural than the US. Perhaps it's the fact that Canada's total population is about 10% of the US. Perhaps it's the fact more people live in the state of California than in the entire country of Canada.


Apples and oranges.

Trust me, we do not have a lack of a gun violence problem because we feel protected by the US! On the contrary... lots of Canadians feel threatened by the US on many different levels, including having guns cross the border into our country.
I also don't think it's about population.
I think it is just a difference in culture. We don't like guns, we don't tend to get off on guns like many Americans seem to, we don't, of course, have the 2nd amendment encouraging people, we certainly don't have an NRA influencing our government, etc. The US has just grown a strong gun culture (fetish). The US also has a fairly violent and aggressive culture compared to Canada. The US is a war nation. Canada is a peacekeeping nation. Speaking in sweeping terms, of course, not on an individual basis. And just as a disclaimer, I am not anti-American at all. No nation is perfect. Canada has its own problems. All nations, and citizens of them, should work to fix their problems... in the US, the gun culture is one of the problems that need fixing IMO.

Guns are not a "fetish" and it's the illegal guns that need fixing...not legal guns. Like you stated you fear guns crossing the border...those would be illegal guns not legal crossing the border.

PJ_Soul

DS1119 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

DS1119 wrote:

Not sure. Perhaps Canada feels the protection that the US provides them. It's easy to have a calm feeling politically, which trickles to down to social behaviors, when you know the neighbors to your south will pretty much protect you just to protect our own interests. Perhaps it's because Canada is much more rural than the US. Perhaps it's the fact that Canada's total population is about 10% of the US. Perhaps it's the fact more people live in the state of California than in the entire country of Canada.


Apples and oranges.

Trust me, we do not have a lack of a gun violence problem because we feel protected by the US! On the contrary... lots of Canadians feel threatened by the US on many different levels, including having guns cross the border into our country.
I also don't think it's about population.
I think it is just a difference in culture. We don't like guns, we don't tend to get off on guns like many Americans seem to, we don't, of course, have the 2nd amendment encouraging people, we certainly don't have an NRA influencing our government, etc. The US has just grown a strong gun culture (fetish). The US also has a fairly violent and aggressive culture compared to Canada. The US is a war nation. Canada is a peacekeeping nation. Speaking in sweeping terms, of course, not on an individual basis. And just as a disclaimer, I am not anti-American at all. No nation is perfect. Canada has its own problems. All nations, and citizens of them, should work to fix their problems... in the US, the gun culture is one of the problems that need fixing IMO.

Guns are not a "fetish" and it's the illegal guns that need fixing...not legal guns. Like you stated you fear guns crossing the border...those would be illegal guns not legal crossing the border.

You're missing the point of my post entirely.