What the hell happen in Virginia??

Last-12-Exit

dudeman said:

Last-12-Exit said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

Something else to consider: it was said many times in this thread that America has a gun problem and the "gun nuts" refuse to acknowledge that. My reply is "No shit America has a gun problem. And a drug problem and an education problem and a race problem and a homeless problem and a class problem and an environmental problem and a work problem and a prison problem and a gang problem and an immigration problem and a greed problem and a corruption problem and a mental health problem and an obesity problem and a culture problem and a drinking problem and a smoking problem and ...................

Too many people out there feel victimized or marginalized by all of these problems. Some of the less that stable ones choose to act out in violent ways with firearms. Yes, that's a problem too, but until we address these issues that are driving people to the level despair that they feel they need to do horrible things to others, nothing will meaningfully change.

Those problems are much harder to solve. When people are truly at the end of their rope, they are desperate and having such destructive weapons available leads to deaths that wouldn't have occured had a blade or blunt object been the only option.

Are you advocating the confiscation of all guns from private ownership?

No, only tighter restrictions on future sales.
An absolute and total end to private sales and registration of all guns sold would be a great place to start.

For the record, confiscation isn't some devilish idea that makes me grab my pitchfork.

The end of private sales and registration is a slippery slope and potentially dangerous as those things would likely lead to complete confiscation. I'm not one of those people that thinks our government is going to enslave its people, I just don't trust them to protect me and my family. They can't even balance a fucking checkbook.

Talk about paranoia. God forbid the government end private guns sales. Please explain how that is one step closer to confiscation. And if guns are forced to be registered, that must mean the government would then know where all of your guns are and that in turn would make it easier for them to take?

I don't think private sales should be made illegal, I just think that they should be subject to the same NICS background checks that are required for sales from FFL's.

A national gun registry would accomplish exactly what you detailed above. What other purpose would it possibly serve?

What purpose does it serve to register vehicles? Taxes. That's my guess.

dankind

dudeman said:

Gern Blansten said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

Something else to consider: it was said many times in this thread that America has a gun problem and the "gun nuts" refuse to acknowledge that. My reply is "No shit America has a gun problem. And a drug problem and an education problem and a race problem and a homeless problem and a class problem and an environmental problem and a work problem and a prison problem and a gang problem and an immigration problem and a greed problem and a corruption problem and a mental health problem and an obesity problem and a culture problem and a drinking problem and a smoking problem and ...................

Too many people out there feel victimized or marginalized by all of these problems. Some of the less that stable ones choose to act out in violent ways with firearms. Yes, that's a problem too, but until we address these issues that are driving people to the level despair that they feel they need to do horrible things to others, nothing will meaningfully change.

Those problems are much harder to solve. When people are truly at the end of their rope, they are desperate and having such destructive weapons available leads to deaths that wouldn't have occured had a blade or blunt object been the only option.

Are you advocating the confiscation of all guns from private ownership?

No, only tighter restrictions on future sales.
An absolute and total end to private sales and registration of all guns sold would be a great place to start.

For the record, confiscation isn't some devilish idea that makes me grab my pitchfork.

The end of private sales and registration is a slippery slope and potentially dangerous as those things would likely lead to complete confiscation. I'm not one of those people that thinks our government is going to enslave its people, I just don't trust them to protect me and my family. They can't even balance a fucking checkbook.

I would think that the "protection" you refer to would be your local police. That is a city gov't...not federal...or do you not support any type of gov't whatsoever?

I don't understand how gun registration would be different than vehicle registration.

Local police are under no obligation to protect me. An officer can watch me be stabbed to death and as long as he arrests my killer, he has done his job. There is legal precedent for this.

I also am not anti-govenrment. In fact, I wouldn't want to live in a society without one. The problem with our government is that it paints with a very wide brush, is reactionary and couldn't possibly meet every citizens individual needs in this matter.

Dudeman, it's their prime directive: "To protect and serve."

hedonist

dankind said:

Dudeman, it's their prime directive: "To protect and serve."

This came to mind as well. Why else would 911 be in place? Or all of the times I've called on my city's fine sheriffs and officers when certain shit was going down?

dudeman

They "protect" by arresting and incarcerating criminals. They are, in essence protecting society from those criminals, but they are doing so only after a crime has been committed.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dudeman said:

They "protect" by arresting and incarcerating criminals. They are, in essence protecting society from those criminals, but they are doing so only after a crime has been committed.

They don't have the benefit of foresight. They protect however they can.

But I'm not sure what you are arguing. Nobody is saying you can't have a shotgun in your home for protection. They're saying you don't need a tommy gun or 44 magnum to offer the same level of security given the level of risk the aforementioned carry when in the wrong hands.

dudeman

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dudeman said:

They "protect" by arresting and incarcerating criminals. They are, in essence protecting society from those criminals, but they are doing so only after a crime has been committed.

They don't have the benefit of foresight. They protect however they can.

But I'm not sure what you are arguing. Nobody is saying you can't have a shotgun in your home for protection. They're saying you don't need a tommy gun or 44 magnum to offer the same level of security given the level of risk the aforementioned carry when in the wrong hands.

First, I'm not arguing, I'm participating in a discussion.

Second, people in this thread are questioning why anyone would want a gun for protection, not which types of guns are considered acceptable to serve that role.

As for the police "not having the benefit of foresight", I don't have that benefit either. I choose to be as prepared as I can, however when less than ideal circumstances present themselves and I'm alone the efforts to curtail those circumstances.

I look at defensive ownership of a firearm much like I look at owning a first-aid kit or a spare tire for my car. I don't live in fear that I may have to use any of those things to get myself or my family through a tough situation, but I am able and prepared to use them if need be.

In all of those cases, I hope I never need any of those items.

callen

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

Something else to consider: it was said many times in this thread that America has a gun problem and the "gun nuts" refuse to acknowledge that. My reply is "No shit America has a gun problem. And a drug problem and an education problem and a race problem and a homeless problem and a class problem and an environmental problem and a work problem and a prison problem and a gang problem and an immigration problem and a greed problem and a corruption problem and a mental health problem and an obesity problem and a culture problem and a drinking problem and a smoking problem and ...................

Too many people out there feel victimized or marginalized by all of these problems. Some of the less that stable ones choose to act out in violent ways with firearms. Yes, that's a problem too, but until we address these issues that are driving people to the level despair that they feel they need to do horrible things to others, nothing will meaningfully change.

Those problems are much harder to solve. When people are truly at the end of their rope, they are desperate and having such destructive weapons available leads to deaths that wouldn't have occured had a blade or blunt object been the only option.

Are you advocating the confiscation of all guns from private ownership?

No, only tighter restrictions on future sales.
An absolute and total end to private sales and registration of all guns sold would be a great place to start.

For the record, confiscation isn't some devilish idea that makes me grab my pitchfork.

The end of private sales and registration is a slippery slope and potentially dangerous as those things would likely lead to complete confiscation. I'm not one of those people that thinks our government is going to enslave its people, I just don't trust them to protect me and my family. They can't even balance a fucking checkbook.

Great so freakin free for all.

And many gun owners can't balance checkbook.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dudeman said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dudeman said:

They "protect" by arresting and incarcerating criminals. They are, in essence protecting society from those criminals, but they are doing so only after a crime has been committed.

They don't have the benefit of foresight. They protect however they can.

But I'm not sure what you are arguing. Nobody is saying you can't have a shotgun in your home for protection. They're saying you don't need a tommy gun or 44 magnum to offer the same level of security given the level of risk the aforementioned carry when in the wrong hands.

First, I'm not arguing, I'm participating in a discussion.

Second, people in this thread are questioning why anyone would want a gun for protection, not which types of guns are considered acceptable to serve that role.

As for the police "not having the benefit of foresight", I don't have that benefit either. I choose to be as prepared as I can, however when less than ideal circumstances present themselves and I'm alone the efforts to curtail those circumstances.

I look at defensive ownership of a firearm much like I look at owning a first-aid kit or a spare tire for my car. I don't live in fear that I may have to use any of those things to get myself or my family through a tough situation, but I am able and prepared to use them if need be.

In all of those cases, I hope I never need any of those items.

I feel people should always have the right to own a firearm (shotgun, hunting rifle, or handgun in certain situations)... unless, of course, they forfeit their right by proving to be someone who might be dangerous with such a gun.

My stance is handguns and assault rifles. The majority of your murders are via the handgun- too easily concealable. I don't see the need for any citizen to own an assault rifle- they've proven to be extremely efficient weapons for committing mass murder.

Home protection is legitimate and so is hunting. Shotguns and rifles with small magazine sizes service these interests very well.

PJ_Soul

dudeman said:

They "protect" by arresting and incarcerating criminals. They are, in essence protecting society from those criminals, but they are doing so only after a crime has been committed.

The police are there to serve and protect. Of course it's their jobs to try and prevent crime if they can. Did I see you say that a policeman can just stand there and watch a crime being committed, no problem, as long as they catch the criminal after the fact? .... Makes me glad I don't live wherever you do, a place where the cops are not doing half their job.

mcgruff10

callen said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

Something else to consider: it was said many times in this thread that America has a gun problem and the "gun nuts" refuse to acknowledge that. My reply is "No shit America has a gun problem. And a drug problem and an education problem and a race problem and a homeless problem and a class problem and an environmental problem and a work problem and a prison problem and a gang problem and an immigration problem and a greed problem and a corruption problem and a mental health problem and an obesity problem and a culture problem and a drinking problem and a smoking problem and ...................

Too many people out there feel victimized or marginalized by all of these problems. Some of the less that stable ones choose to act out in violent ways with firearms. Yes, that's a problem too, but until we address these issues that are driving people to the level despair that they feel they need to do horrible things to others, nothing will meaningfully change.

Those problems are much harder to solve. When people are truly at the end of their rope, they are desperate and having such destructive weapons available leads to deaths that wouldn't have occured had a blade or blunt object been the only option.

Are you advocating the confiscation of all guns from private ownership?

No, only tighter restrictions on future sales.
An absolute and total end to private sales and registration of all guns sold would be a great place to start.

For the record, confiscation isn't some devilish idea that makes me grab my pitchfork.

The end of private sales and registration is a slippery slope and potentially dangerous as those things would likely lead to complete confiscation. I'm not one of those people that thinks our government is going to enslave its people, I just don't trust them to protect me and my family. They can't even balance a fucking checkbook.

Great so freakin free for all.

And many gun owners can't balance checkbook.

People still have checkbooks?
And don't forget the "a" before checkbook. With the "a" your post is super intelligent.

dudeman

PJ_Soul said:

dudeman said:

They "protect" by arresting and incarcerating criminals. They are, in essence protecting society from those criminals, but they are doing so only after a crime has been committed.

The police are there to serve and protect. Of course it's their jobs to try and prevent crime if they can. Did I see you say that a policeman can just stand there and watch a crime being committed, no problem, as long as they catch the criminal after the fact? .... Makes me glad I don't live wherever you do, a place where the cops are not doing half their job.

Yup. Supreme Court says so. Google it if you care to.

dudeman

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dudeman said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dudeman said:

They "protect" by arresting and incarcerating criminals. They are, in essence protecting society from those criminals, but they are doing so only after a crime has been committed.

They don't have the benefit of foresight. They protect however they can.

But I'm not sure what you are arguing. Nobody is saying you can't have a shotgun in your home for protection. They're saying you don't need a tommy gun or 44 magnum to offer the same level of security given the level of risk the aforementioned carry when in the wrong hands.

First, I'm not arguing, I'm participating in a discussion.

Second, people in this thread are questioning why anyone would want a gun for protection, not which types of guns are considered acceptable to serve that role.

As for the police "not having the benefit of foresight", I don't have that benefit either. I choose to be as prepared as I can, however when less than ideal circumstances present themselves and I'm alone the efforts to curtail those circumstances.

I look at defensive ownership of a firearm much like I look at owning a first-aid kit or a spare tire for my car. I don't live in fear that I may have to use any of those things to get myself or my family through a tough situation, but I am able and prepared to use them if need be.

In all of those cases, I hope I never need any of those items.

I feel people should always have the right to own a firearm (shotgun, hunting rifle, or handgun in certain situations)... unless, of course, they forfeit their right by proving to be someone who might be dangerous with such a gun.

My stance is handguns and assault rifles. The majority of your murders are via the handgun- too easily concealable. I don't see the need for any citizen to own an assault rifle- they've proven to be extremely efficient weapons for committing mass murder.

Home protection is legitimate and so is hunting. Shotguns and rifles with small magazine sizes service these interests very well.

Your first paragraph states the current situation in the US. I also don't own an "assault rifle" as I feel that I don't really need one. It's nice to have the option though, as long as I meet the criteria of not being a danger to society.

I also just heard that mass murders account for about .5% of gun deaths in the US. While it's still too many, mass murders aren't the cause of huge gun-related fatalities. Of the 30,000 per year, 20,000 are suicides. Of the remaining 10,000, 90% of those are committed by people that are somehow related to or otherwise involved with the victim.

It's a shitty situation for sure but eliminating "assault rifles" will likely have little to no impact on the annual gun death rate.

dudeman

callen said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

Something else to consider: it was said many times in this thread that America has a gun problem and the "gun nuts" refuse to acknowledge that. My reply is "No shit America has a gun problem. And a drug problem and an education problem and a race problem and a homeless problem and a class problem and an environmental problem and a work problem and a prison problem and a gang problem and an immigration problem and a greed problem and a corruption problem and a mental health problem and an obesity problem and a culture problem and a drinking problem and a smoking problem and ...................

Too many people out there feel victimized or marginalized by all of these problems. Some of the less that stable ones choose to act out in violent ways with firearms. Yes, that's a problem too, but until we address these issues that are driving people to the level despair that they feel they need to do horrible things to others, nothing will meaningfully change.

Those problems are much harder to solve. When people are truly at the end of their rope, they are desperate and having such destructive weapons available leads to deaths that wouldn't have occured had a blade or blunt object been the only option.

Are you advocating the confiscation of all guns from private ownership?

No, only tighter restrictions on future sales.
An absolute and total end to private sales and registration of all guns sold would be a great place to start.

For the record, confiscation isn't some devilish idea that makes me grab my pitchfork.

The end of private sales and registration is a slippery slope and potentially dangerous as those things would likely lead to complete confiscation. I'm not one of those people that thinks our government is going to enslave its people, I just don't trust them to protect me and my family. They can't even balance a fucking checkbook.

Great so freakin free for all.

And many gun owners can't balance checkbook.

Not really a "free for all", there are limits to gun ownership rights, as there should be.

The freedom to be able to make the decision for myself is worth fighting for, IMO.

mcgruff10

dudeman said:

callen said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

rgambs said:

dudeman said:

Something else to consider: it was said many times in this thread that America has a gun problem and the "gun nuts" refuse to acknowledge that. My reply is "No shit America has a gun problem. And a drug problem and an education problem and a race problem and a homeless problem and a class problem and an environmental problem and a work problem and a prison problem and a gang problem and an immigration problem and a greed problem and a corruption problem and a mental health problem and an obesity problem and a culture problem and a drinking problem and a smoking problem and ...................

Too many people out there feel victimized or marginalized by all of these problems. Some of the less that stable ones choose to act out in violent ways with firearms. Yes, that's a problem too, but until we address these issues that are driving people to the level despair that they feel they need to do horrible things to others, nothing will meaningfully change.

Those problems are much harder to solve. When people are truly at the end of their rope, they are desperate and having such destructive weapons available leads to deaths that wouldn't have occured had a blade or blunt object been the only option.

Are you advocating the confiscation of all guns from private ownership?

No, only tighter restrictions on future sales.
An absolute and total end to private sales and registration of all guns sold would be a great place to start.

For the record, confiscation isn't some devilish idea that makes me grab my pitchfork.

The end of private sales and registration is a slippery slope and potentially dangerous as those things would likely lead to complete confiscation. I'm not one of those people that thinks our government is going to enslave its people, I just don't trust them to protect me and my family. They can't even balance a fucking checkbook.

Great so freakin free for all.

And many gun owners can't balance checkbook.

Not really a "free for all", there are limits to gun ownership rights, as there should be.

The freedom to be able to make the decision for myself is worth fighting for, IMO.

agree 100%. I would say 99% of all gun owners are very responsible. It's the 1% (or less) that are making us looking bad.

Dr.Teeth and the Electric Mayh

Unfortunately all of this is probably going nowhere. Congress is bought and paid for by the NRA, and at the moment, won't even listen on background checks. Pretty pathetic.

Last-12-Exit

dudeman said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dudeman said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dudeman said:

They "protect" by arresting and incarcerating criminals. They are, in essence protecting society from those criminals, but they are doing so only after a crime has been committed.

They don't have the benefit of foresight. They protect however they can.

But I'm not sure what you are arguing. Nobody is saying you can't have a shotgun in your home for protection. They're saying you don't need a tommy gun or 44 magnum to offer the same level of security given the level of risk the aforementioned carry when in the wrong hands.

First, I'm not arguing, I'm participating in a discussion.

Second, people in this thread are questioning why anyone would want a gun for protection, not which types of guns are considered acceptable to serve that role.

As for the police "not having the benefit of foresight", I don't have that benefit either. I choose to be as prepared as I can, however when less than ideal circumstances present themselves and I'm alone the efforts to curtail those circumstances.

I look at defensive ownership of a firearm much like I look at owning a first-aid kit or a spare tire for my car. I don't live in fear that I may have to use any of those things to get myself or my family through a tough situation, but I am able and prepared to use them if need be.

In all of those cases, I hope I never need any of those items.

I feel people should always have the right to own a firearm (shotgun, hunting rifle, or handgun in certain situations)... unless, of course, they forfeit their right by proving to be someone who might be dangerous with such a gun.

My stance is handguns and assault rifles. The majority of your murders are via the handgun- too easily concealable. I don't see the need for any citizen to own an assault rifle- they've proven to be extremely efficient weapons for committing mass murder.

Home protection is legitimate and so is hunting. Shotguns and rifles with small magazine sizes service these interests very well.

Your first paragraph states the current situation in the US. I also don't own an "assault rifle" as I feel that I don't really need one. It's nice to have the option though, as long as I meet the criteria of not being a danger to society.

I also just heard that mass murders account for about .5% of gun deaths in the US. While it's still too many, mass murders aren't the cause of huge gun-related fatalities. Of the 30,000 per year, 20,000 are suicides. Of the remaining 10,000, 90% of those are committed by people that are somehow related to or otherwise involved with the victim.

It's a shitty situation for sure but eliminating "assault rifles" will likely have little to no impact on the annual gun death rate.

Can you cite those numbers?

PJ_Soul

dudeman said:

PJ_Soul said:

dudeman said:

They "protect" by arresting and incarcerating criminals. They are, in essence protecting society from those criminals, but they are doing so only after a crime has been committed.

The police are there to serve and protect. Of course it's their jobs to try and prevent crime if they can. Did I see you say that a policeman can just stand there and watch a crime being committed, no problem, as long as they catch the criminal after the fact? .... Makes me glad I don't live wherever you do, a place where the cops are not doing half their job.

Yup. Supreme Court says so. Google it if you care to.

Would be pointless. Cops just don't do that. Not any decent one anyway. Some asshole cop might have gotten away with it by taking it to the Supreme Court after law enforcement tried to prosecute and/or fire him (because they know that cops are supposed to protect too), but I bet he lost the respect of all of his colleagues and the public while he was at it, and other cops certainly didn't jump on board. Also, you're obviously referring to one particular case. Just because there was a finding like this in the courts it doesn't mean that's how it works. It means that a shitty cop who didn't do his job properly can't be sued or thrown in prison for doing it. That is a big difference. Cops try to stop people from dying when they can and their job is still to protect.

dudeman

PJ_Soul said:

dudeman said:

PJ_Soul said:

dudeman said:

They "protect" by arresting and incarcerating criminals. They are, in essence protecting society from those criminals, but they are doing so only after a crime has been committed.

The police are there to serve and protect. Of course it's their jobs to try and prevent crime if they can. Did I see you say that a policeman can just stand there and watch a crime being committed, no problem, as long as they catch the criminal after the fact? .... Makes me glad I don't live wherever you do, a place where the cops are not doing half their job.

Yup. Supreme Court says so. Google it if you care to.

Would be pointless. Cops just don't do that. Not any decent one anyway. Some asshole cop might have gotten away with it by taking it to the Supreme Court after law enforcement tried to prosecute and/or fire him (because they know that cops are supposed to protect too), but I bet he lost the respect of all of his colleagues and the public while he was at it, and other cops certainly didn't jump on board. Also, you're obviously referring to one particular case. Just because there was a finding like this in the courts it doesn't mean that's how it works. It means that a shitty cop who didn't do his job properly can't be sued or thrown in prison for doing it. That is a big difference. Cops try to stop people from dying when they can and their job is still to protect.

Yes, but all of that assumes that the police actually arrive in time to be of assistance before someone ends up dead.

dudeman

Last-12-Exit said:

dudeman said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dudeman said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dudeman said:

They "protect" by arresting and incarcerating criminals. They are, in essence protecting society from those criminals, but they are doing so only after a crime has been committed.

They don't have the benefit of foresight. They protect however they can.

But I'm not sure what you are arguing. Nobody is saying you can't have a shotgun in your home for protection. They're saying you don't need a tommy gun or 44 magnum to offer the same level of security given the level of risk the aforementioned carry when in the wrong hands.

First, I'm not arguing, I'm participating in a discussion.

Second, people in this thread are questioning why anyone would want a gun for protection, not which types of guns are considered acceptable to serve that role.

As for the police "not having the benefit of foresight", I don't have that benefit either. I choose to be as prepared as I can, however when less than ideal circumstances present themselves and I'm alone the efforts to curtail those circumstances.

I look at defensive ownership of a firearm much like I look at owning a first-aid kit or a spare tire for my car. I don't live in fear that I may have to use any of those things to get myself or my family through a tough situation, but I am able and prepared to use them if need be.

In all of those cases, I hope I never need any of those items.

I feel people should always have the right to own a firearm (shotgun, hunting rifle, or handgun in certain situations)... unless, of course, they forfeit their right by proving to be someone who might be dangerous with such a gun.

My stance is handguns and assault rifles. The majority of your murders are via the handgun- too easily concealable. I don't see the need for any citizen to own an assault rifle- they've proven to be extremely efficient weapons for committing mass murder.

Home protection is legitimate and so is hunting. Shotguns and rifles with small magazine sizes service these interests very well.

Your first paragraph states the current situation in the US. I also don't own an "assault rifle" as I feel that I don't really need one. It's nice to have the option though, as long as I meet the criteria of not being a danger to society.

I also just heard that mass murders account for about .5% of gun deaths in the US. While it's still too many, mass murders aren't the cause of huge gun-related fatalities. Of the 30,000 per year, 20,000 are suicides. Of the remaining 10,000, 90% of those are committed by people that are somehow related to or otherwise involved with the victim.

It's a shitty situation for sure but eliminating "assault rifles" will likely have little to no impact on the annual gun death rate.

Can you cite those numbers?

Those numbers were part of a discussion about gun violence in the US that aired on the Diane Rehm Show on NPR this morning. Sorry, I don't have a link. You could probably visit NPR.org to get the info first-hand.

Godfather.

why would anybody in thier right mind say it's o.k to own a .22 cal gun for home protection but not an AK ? are there different levels of dead for breaking into a home and attacking a family ? the AK simi auto would change an intruders mind a heck of a lot quicker than a .22, if I protect my home with a large cal weapon or a small cal weapon or if I just want to own one because I like them is none of ANYBODYS business unless your the poor bastard attacking my family then you will find out what a large cal weapon will do....simple really

Godfather.