Gun remark makes outdoorsman an outcast

Pacomc79

baraka wrote:

Hey, I appreciate the info! Although they were all around me growing up, I really know very little about guns. And you might have the right logic concerning drugs and guns. Ill have to shelve that one and think about it awhile.

Tell you the truth I don't know a whole lot either, I don't want you to shelve it just be open to discussion and you are so that's very cool. A lot of people make great points, we do need better gun control. No one wants kids getting killed or people running wild killing other people there just has to be better ways to go about it than arbitary legislation. That's kind of where I am on a lot of social issues.

When I start hearing the "people shouldn't be allowed to....." argument I get worried. Checks and balances and different opinions are what make society great and fun, I'm just tired of bad apples being the reason we have to ruin liberty for the rest of us.

Cheers, P.

Scubascott

jeffbr wrote:

Do you kjnow how much Howard's gun buyback program cost? Do you know how many guns were destroyed? Do you know what the net effect that program had on crime is?

Without looking up the exact figures, no I don't know, but I would guess that it cost a few million, and many thousands of guns were destroyed. The net effect on crime was probably minimal, except that since the new laws were introduced there have been no incidents of lunatics going on rampages with military rifles.

That's hardly the point though. The point is that there is absolutely no reason for anyone to own firearms like that, just as there is no reason for people to own hand grenades or rocket launchers, and by taking them out of circulation you help to prevent the development of a dangerous culture of gun ownership like you see in the states. Those weapons are designed to kill people, not animals, so why does any 'hunter' need to own one?

On our property we own several rifles, all of which are bolt action. My favourite is the .223, which holds only five rounds. I've never once needed to fire more than two shots at anything, so it is more than adequate for hunting purposes. As I said before, if you need to empty 30 or 40 rounds into a deer to bring it down, you are a very bad shot, and from an animal welfare and public safety point of veiw, you shouldn't be allowed to handle a firearm.

onelongsong

baraka wrote:

It could be a private or government organization, it matters not to me. There are plenty animal control organizations that exist. You do not want a bunch of laymen with assault weapons shooting these critters to bits. Esp, if there is an infectious disease involved. You still have to deal with the removal of said animal.

a 50 round mag....geesh! Maybe I am the only one that sees that as extreme. I mean, if my neighbor can have an arsenal, maybe I should be able to cook up a batch of small pox in my basement. A biological weapon is a weapon, nonetheless. It should be my right to protect myself from the yahoo next door with a tank and arsenal. Again, where do we draw the line??????? Maybe someone should explain to me the necessity of having assault weapons or even these 30 round mags? I'll admit, I am no gun expert. Perhaps I'm missing something.

the best things about shooting at a range is when someone brings an anti-gun person to the range. that person usually becomes a regular.
50 and 100 round magazines are only to say you have them. after 1 shot the prairie dogs are gone. hidden in their burrows. the use of assault weapons is the accuracy. and the fact that they use small bullets that are accurate to a long range. the next weapon up is much too powerful and would blow the animal to pieces.
as to who's best equipt and able to remove these animals; it's the hunter. someone that can place a bullet in the size of a quarter at 100 + yards. someone who practices constantly. that's who i'd want exterminating these animals. the assault weapons i've seen used have 5 round magazines. you only get 1 shot at a prairie dog.
so what does it matter the object that propelled the bullet?

jeffbr

Scubascott wrote:

Without looking up the exact figures, no I don't know, but I would guess that it cost a few million, and many thousands of guns were destroyed. The net effect on crime was probably minimal, except that since the new laws were introduced there have been no incidents of lunatics going on rampages with military rifles.

$500,000,000 was spent to buy back 600,000 guns, and there was no effect on crime rates. Here's a clue for the gun grabbers - law abiding citizen turn them in. Criminals don't. After a ban like this, the criminals still had their guns.

onelongsong

jeffbr wrote:

$500,000,000 was spent to buy back 600,000 guns, and there was no effect on crime rates. Here's a clue for the gun grabbers - law abiding citizen turn them in. Criminals don't. After a ban like this, the criminals still had their guns.

adding to that; if you want gun control and guns out of the hands of criminals; enforce smuggling laws. illegal guns are illegal because they were smuggled into the country and therefore do not have a paper trail. guard the borders and stop the influx of illegal guns and you will attain gun control.
i wonder how many of the people that turned in guns used the money to buy a new gun?

69charger

Pacomc79 wrote:

when you get into the automatic weapons (illegal since the 1930's)

Not illegal, just a lot more paperwork to own. Restricted in '86. Oh yeah, and they are VERY expensive. A $400 legally transferrable AK cost $14-25k! Cost prohibitive to law abiding citizens. A criminal will still pay $400 for the same gun with absolutely no paperwork.

http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/

Click on NFA Firearms.

onelongsong

69charger wrote:

Not illegal, just a lot more paperwork to own. Restricted in '86. Oh yeah, and they are VERY expensive. A $400 legally transferrable AK cost $14-25k! Cost prohibitive to law abiding citizens. A criminal will still pay $400 for the same gun with absolutely no paperwork.

http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/

Click on NFA Firearms.

there has not been a crime committed with a legal full automatic weapon since 1934 according to the fbi.

Heatherj43

A funny sight....I live very near to an outdoor range where they shoot skeets. So, they shoot towards a hill that is across from them, I guess just to not have stray bullets flying around...like for the shots they miss. Its a very big place.

The funny part??? A family of deer get on top of the hill, graze, and watch the guns go off. Its hilarious.

Scubascott

jeffbr wrote:

$500,000,000 was spent to buy back 600,000 guns, and there was no effect on crime rates. Here's a clue for the gun grabbers - law abiding citizen turn them in. Criminals don't. After a ban like this, the criminals still had their guns.

I see that you're still choosing to ignore my point.

Scubascott

onelongsong wrote:

i wonder how many of the people that turned in guns used the money to buy a new gun?

I know a lot of people who handed in old, illegal firearms and used the money to buy much nicer, newer, legal ones.

jeffbr

Scubascott wrote:

I see that you're still choosing to ignore my point.

You are correct. I did ignore your point, but only because we will get exactly nowhere on that issue. It will be absolutely impossible for us to find common ground. You claim your point is "the" point. My "the" point is freedom and liberty. We are miles apart. So I chose to ignore it so that I wouldn't repeat my schtick and you wouldn't repeat your schtick.

But if you insist, I will go there with you.

Scubascott

jeffbr wrote:

You are correct. I did ignore your point, but only because we will get exactly nowhere on that issue. It will be absolutely impossible for us to find common ground. You claim your point is "the" point. My "the" point is freedom and liberty. We are miles apart. So I chose to ignore it so that I wouldn't repeat my schtick and you wouldn't repeat your schtick.

But if you insist, I will go there with you.

No I don't insist. Lets just agree to disagree. We live in different countries, apparently with different ideas of what constitutes a fundamental liberty. I understand your argument, even without hearing it from you, because I've heard it so many times before. I don't agree, and I think that for Australia at least, the introduction of tighter gun laws was a good thing. I'm saying that as a gun owner and user. I'll leave it at that.

jeffbr

Scubascott wrote:

No I don't insist. Lets just agree to disagree. We live in different countries, apparently with different ideas of what constitutes a fundamental liberty. I understand your argument, even without hearing it from you, because I've heard it so many times before. I don't agree, and I think that for Australia at least, the introduction of tighter gun laws was a good thing. I'm saying that as a gun owner and user. I'll leave it at that.

Cool. I do understand your argument, and I do respect you, I just know that we won't come to consensus on the issue.

onelongsong

jeffbr wrote:

You are correct. I did ignore your point, but only because we will get exactly nowhere on that issue. It will be absolutely impossible for us to find common ground. You claim your point is "the" point. My "the" point is freedom and liberty. We are miles apart. So I chose to ignore it so that I wouldn't repeat my schtick and you wouldn't repeat your schtick.

But if you insist, I will go there with you.

it's almost funny how people come to the realization of what their fundamental freedoms should be. for example; when hitler disarmed germany the people thought it was a move towards a more civilized society. when the nazi machine took full swing; they realized they were dooped and only disarmed so they couldn't resist a dictator. when the us starts talking about banning guns; i'll start hoarding them.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

it's almost funny how people come to the realization of what their fundamental freedoms should be. for example; when hitler disarmed germany the people thought it was a move towards a more civilized society. when the nazi machine took full swing; they realized they were dooped and only disarmed so they couldn't resist a dictator. when the us starts talking about banning guns; i'll start hoarding them.

what makes me curious is the contradiction held by many of these people that tighter gun laws are unreasonable and unconstitutional and impose a huge burden on legal gun owners, but government wire-tapping of us citiznes without any warrants or oversight is perfectly reasonable, constitutional, and "if you didnt do anything wrong you shouldn't have anything to worry about." shouldn't these gun lobbyists be saying "well if you're not a felon you have nothing to worry about cos you can still buy whatever you want."

jeffbr

soulsinging wrote:

what makes me curious is the contradiction held by many of these people that tighter gun laws are unreasonable and unconstitutional and impose a huge burden on legal gun owners, but government wire-tapping of us citiznes without any warrants or oversight is perfectly reasonable, constitutional, and "if you didnt do anything wrong you shouldn't have anything to worry about." shouldn't these gun lobbyists be saying "well if you're not a felon you have nothing to worry about cos you can still buy whatever you want."

I try to be consistent in my distrust of the gov't. I am anti-patriot act and anti-gun banning. I like the ACLU watching out for my liberties -- except the 2nd ammendment. I like the NRA for watching out for that one. I give money to both.

By the same token, I don't get people who are vigilant about our 1st and 4th ammendment rights, but don't give a shit about the 2nd ammendment, as if we should just pick and chose at this point. I'm a big fan of preserving all of my liberties.

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

what makes me curious is the contradiction held by many of these people that tighter gun laws are unreasonable and unconstitutional and impose a huge burden on legal gun owners, but government wire-tapping of us citiznes without any warrants or oversight is perfectly reasonable, constitutional, and "if you didnt do anything wrong you shouldn't have anything to worry about." shouldn't these gun lobbyists be saying "well if you're not a felon you have nothing to worry about cos you can still buy whatever you want."

ah; ignorance is bliss. let's first look at the areas with the strictest gun laws; that's where you'll find the highest crime rates. now look to the 23 states that allow citizens to carry conceiled weapons. crime is the lowest.

now let's look at illegal weapons. an honest citizen will not buy an illegal weapon; ie: one smuggled into the country illegally. and a criminal cannot buy a legal firearm.

so what do stricter gun laws do? they create a black market. so in order to control the guns that get into the hands of criminals; we must attack the smuggling of guns.
somehow we must get it out of our heads that punishing innocent people will deter crime. my guns should only scare you if you are going to attack me.

soulsinging

jeffbr wrote:

I try to be consistent in my distrust of the gov't. I am anti-patriot act and anti-gun banning. I like the ACLU watching out for my liberties -- except the 2nd ammendment. I like the NRA for watching out for that one. I give money to both.

By the same token, I don't get people who are vigilant about our 1st and 4th ammendment rights, but don't give a shit about the 2nd ammendment, as if we should just pick and chose at this point. I'm a big fan of preserving all of my liberties.

as am i, but we've agreed there are regulations on all. you cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater... it is not protected free speech. similarly, there is room for some regulation of access to guns. granted, i dont think banning assault weapons is the answer, but not every single move to regulate guns is automatically violating the 2nd amendment, just as not every regulation on speech is a violation of constitutional rights.

i find that many of the NRA folks view it just that way though, which is unproductive. instead of involving people with an honest concern for 2nd amendment rights, it has effectively excluded them from the debate becos they're unwilling to come to the table to talk sense and compromise. it's led to a weird ad-hoc patchwork of gun laws that is ridiculous and ineffective and probably does more damage to 2nd amendment rights than an honestly discussed and well thought policy would.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

ah; ignorance is bliss. let's first look at the areas with the strictest gun laws; that's where you'll find the highest crime rates. now look to the 23 states that allow citizens to carry conceiled weapons. crime is the lowest.

now let's look at illegal weapons. an honest citizen will not buy an illegal weapon; ie: one smuggled into the country illegally. and a criminal cannot buy a legal firearm.

so what do stricter gun laws do? they create a black market. so in order to control the guns that get into the hands of criminals; we must attack the smuggling of guns.
somehow we must get it out of our heads that punishing innocent people will deter crime. my guns should only scare you if you are going to attack me.

where did i say i want stricter gun laws? i dont actually. in fact, i think my proposals would be much more liberal than current policies. what i am advocating is SMARTER regulation, not necessarily more or stricter regulation.

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

where did i say i want stricter gun laws? i dont actually. in fact, i think my proposals would be much more liberal than current policies. what i am advocating is SMARTER regulation, not necessarily more or stricter regulation.

so let's hear your ideas.