America's Gun Violence
Comments
-
There are volumes of data that refute this statement soundly.dudeman said:The problem is that the proposed "common sense" gun control measures are not likely to reduce violence.
The argument will be made that the new laws don't go far enough and then there will be a push for confiscation. That's why the "gun nuts" oppose new legislation.
"Common Sense Gun Laws" will effect lawful gun owners, not criminals.
Something interesting about the words "common sense" is that those were the words used extensively by those who supported Eugenics. At the time, if you spoke up against Eugenics, you would be ridiculed by your peers for not possessing "common sense".
Just saying...
The rest is just as bad, the resistance to registration and thorough controls is THE pathway to guns for criminals. Keep up the status quo and the iron pipeline and all the black markets just continue to pump guns into urban areas, it's sad.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
There are volumes of speculation. That's it.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV0 -
traceability for a start. that way there are specific folks who can be held to account. back to the original purchaser if necessary. This requires a record of all sales down the line._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
So, if you legally sold a gun to someone who sold it to someone else and they committed a crime with it, the original purchaser could face charges?
I hope you're kidding or I'm misunderstanding something here.If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV0 -
If it came down to the original purchaser selling to someone they shouldnt have but that gun kept being sold then yes, but really the intent to this is to stop at the seller who sold illegally.dudeman said:So, if you legally sold a gun to someone who sold it to someone else and they committed a crime with it, the original purchaser could face charges?
I hope you're kidding or I'm misunderstanding something here.
Is that more easily understood?
You know damn well there are "legal purchasers" selling illegally with no requirement to conduct checks or like ohio even inform the state it sold._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.
Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not.
Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?
Yeah, no thanks.If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV0 -
Here in Ohio, the ONLY purchase thats recorded is the first one. I have a HUGE problem with that.dudeman said:It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.
Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not.
Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?
Yeah, no thanks.
So tell me, since you have been mostly reasonable in my book on this issue, what would you propose to prevent the guns from ever reaching the criminals in the first place. Its smply false that most come from thefts. SOME ONE is selling them. So agaiin, it comes down to traceability, holding those fucks to account._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
No, the seller isn't responsible for the crime ever, only for selling the gun illegally. If the seller performs the proper background checks and resgistration processes then there is no criminality to speak of.dudeman said:It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.
Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not.
Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?
Yeah, no thanks.
It would work the same way it works with cars, with the addition of checking the purchaser for criminal history and gang connections.
Part of that is that we must be more willing to restrict which sorts of criminals, mental health risks, and personal/family ties to terrorists and gangs.
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
What's the point of "Punpkin Chunkin"? It's not practice in case we go back to medieval warfare. The goal is just for fun. Fireworks were (and still are) fun. I was into archery as a kid and loved it, even thinking of getting back into it. Boys like anything that shoots or goes bang. I don't t tactical training with combat scenarios, I shoot oranges and apples from my parents orchard and watch them explode.mickeyrat said:
what is really the main point or goal of target shooting or practice?mace1229 said:
I admit saying guns weren't designed to kill was a poor choice of words. I was thinking more something along the lines of the intended purpose when bought. Moving from a state (CA) where I was the only gun owner at my work in a building of about 40 people, to a state where about 90% of my coworkers own guns. (That had nothing to do with the reason for the move by the way, CA just got too expensive. My mortgage, tax and insurance on my 5 bedroom house on 1/3 acre is about $2 more than what I was paying for my half of the rent in a 2 bedroom apartment). Anyway, I know quite a few people with a wide range of firearms. A few were bought for self defense reasons, a few for hunting (killing yes, but not other people) but almost all were just for target shooting regardless of the type of firearm. All of the guns I own were purchased solely for target practice and are kept locked up with the ammo in a separate room. The last time I shot anything living was a bird in the 8th grade with a BB gun and my dad made me volunteer all summer at an animal rescue center for my punishment.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
As soon as you said guns are really designed for target practice... you lost your point (even though it was failing from the outset).mace1229 said:I've asked this question to friends in a friendly conversation about gun control and never get a serious answer. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with this, but want a real answer. Because in my mind I don't see how you can be for one but against another.
According to CDC there were 9,967 DUI deaths in 2014. According to the FBI website there was 8,775 gun homicides in 2010.
I know the years are different, those were just the first available results when I searched their websites. I also know most sources will quote gun deaths at much higher. Those include suicides and other forms, this number from the FBI is strictly homicides...Just don't want anyone thinking I am purposely misrepresenting data.
How can you be anti gun without wanting a ban on alcohol? More are killed from DUI accidents than are murdered with a gun. The only answer I've received was "alcohol isn't designed to kill people." True that alcohol is not designed to kill people-but in reality neither are most guns. More guns are designed with target practice, hunting or self defense in mind. And 99.9% of gun owners follow the law (completely made up that stat by the way). So if you want to ban guns to save lives, why not ban alcohol?
Look the stats up
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
Guns are designed to kill. Period.
Hunting to kill animals? Yes. So... long rifles and shotguns... absolutely (to qualified owners). Self defence? Yes... so again... shotguns are great for self defence (exceptional stopping power and even a poor shot could use it for such a purpose).
Handguns? To someone demonstrating need? For sure. The suburbanite doesn't need one though even though they're pretty damn fancy.
Assault rifles? Urban assault rifles poorly designed for killing animals at typical distances found in the hunting setting and excellent for killing many things at short distances in rapid succession? Even they're really fancy too... No. Just no. Except for military and initial response teams in law enforcement.
I am for gun laws, but just ones that makes sense. Some laws and restrictions are needed. Many guns in CA are banned simply because they "look mean" though and for no other reason.
If you can't keep or use a firearm responsibly you shouldn't have one, but the vast majority do.0 -
Hahaha I was ridiculed for saying that men shoot because of a juvenile love of bangs and explosions...mace1229 said:
What's the point of "Punpkin Chunkin"? It's not practice in case we go back to medieval warfare. The goal is just for fun. Fireworks were (and still are) fun. I was into archery as a kid and loved it, even thinking of getting back into it. Boys like anything that shoots or goes bang. I don't t tactical training with combat scenarios, I shoot oranges and apples from my parents orchard and watch them explode.mickeyrat said:
what is really the main point or goal of target shooting or practice?mace1229 said:
I admit saying guns weren't designed to kill was a poor choice of words. I was thinking more something along the lines of the intended purpose when bought. Moving from a state (CA) where I was the only gun owner at my work in a building of about 40 people, to a state where about 90% of my coworkers own guns. (That had nothing to do with the reason for the move by the way, CA just got too expensive. My mortgage, tax and insurance on my 5 bedroom house on 1/3 acre is about $2 more than what I was paying for my half of the rent in a 2 bedroom apartment). Anyway, I know quite a few people with a wide range of firearms. A few were bought for self defense reasons, a few for hunting (killing yes, but not other people) but almost all were just for target shooting regardless of the type of firearm. All of the guns I own were purchased solely for target practice and are kept locked up with the ammo in a separate room. The last time I shot anything living was a bird in the 8th grade with a BB gun and my dad made me volunteer all summer at an animal rescue center for my punishment.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
As soon as you said guns are really designed for target practice... you lost your point (even though it was failing from the outset).mace1229 said:I've asked this question to friends in a friendly conversation about gun control and never get a serious answer. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with this, but want a real answer. Because in my mind I don't see how you can be for one but against another.
According to CDC there were 9,967 DUI deaths in 2014. According to the FBI website there was 8,775 gun homicides in 2010.
I know the years are different, those were just the first available results when I searched their websites. I also know most sources will quote gun deaths at much higher. Those include suicides and other forms, this number from the FBI is strictly homicides...Just don't want anyone thinking I am purposely misrepresenting data.
How can you be anti gun without wanting a ban on alcohol? More are killed from DUI accidents than are murdered with a gun. The only answer I've received was "alcohol isn't designed to kill people." True that alcohol is not designed to kill people-but in reality neither are most guns. More guns are designed with target practice, hunting or self defense in mind. And 99.9% of gun owners follow the law (completely made up that stat by the way). So if you want to ban guns to save lives, why not ban alcohol?
Look the stats up
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
Guns are designed to kill. Period.
Hunting to kill animals? Yes. So... long rifles and shotguns... absolutely (to qualified owners). Self defence? Yes... so again... shotguns are great for self defence (exceptional stopping power and even a poor shot could use it for such a purpose).
Handguns? To someone demonstrating need? For sure. The suburbanite doesn't need one though even though they're pretty damn fancy.
Assault rifles? Urban assault rifles poorly designed for killing animals at typical distances found in the hunting setting and excellent for killing many things at short distances in rapid succession? Even they're really fancy too... No. Just no. Except for military and initial response teams in law enforcement.
I am for gun laws, but just ones that makes sense. Some laws and restrictions are needed. Many guns in CA are banned simply because they "look mean" though and for no other reason.
If you can't keep or use a firearm responsibly you shouldn't have one, but the vast majority do.
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
I am against any additional gun restriction or legislation until current laws are enforced. There is no data out there to support that our current laws are being enforced to any degree that is effective. You use alcohol in your example. Alcohol is responsible for a large amount of deaths but alcohol laws are enforced on a consistent basis. If the enforcement of current laws is not adequate then by all means adopt more legislation to attempt to solve the problem. If on the other hand, little to no enforcement of the law is being done, then new laws will accomplish nothing to the problem. Ok.......attack away.mace1229 said:
I admit saying guns weren't designed to kill was a poor choice of words. I was thinking more something along the lines of the intended purpose when bought. Moving from a state (CA) where I was the only gun owner at my work in a building of about 40 people, to a state where about 90% of my coworkers own guns. (That had nothing to do with the reason for the move by the way, CA just got too expensive. My mortgage, tax and insurance on my 5 bedroom house on 1/3 acre is about $2 more than what I was paying for my half of the rent in a 2 bedroom apartment). Anyway, I know quite a few people with a wide range of firearms. A few were bought for self defense reasons, a few for hunting (killing yes, but not other people) but almost all were just for target shooting regardless of the type of firearm. All of the guns I own were purchased solely for target practice and are kept locked up with the ammo in a separate room. The last time I shot anything living was a bird in the 8th grade with a BB gun and my dad made me volunteer all summer at an animal rescue center for my punishment.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
As soon as you said guns are really designed for target practice... you lost your point (even though it was failing from the outset).mace1229 said:I've asked this question to friends in a friendly conversation about gun control and never get a serious answer. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with this, but want a real answer. Because in my mind I don't see how you can be for one but against another.
According to CDC there were 9,967 DUI deaths in 2014. According to the FBI website there was 8,775 gun homicides in 2010.
I know the years are different, those were just the first available results when I searched their websites. I also know most sources will quote gun deaths at much higher. Those include suicides and other forms, this number from the FBI is strictly homicides...Just don't want anyone thinking I am purposely misrepresenting data.
How can you be anti gun without wanting a ban on alcohol? More are killed from DUI accidents than are murdered with a gun. The only answer I've received was "alcohol isn't designed to kill people." True that alcohol is not designed to kill people-but in reality neither are most guns. More guns are designed with target practice, hunting or self defense in mind. And 99.9% of gun owners follow the law (completely made up that stat by the way). So if you want to ban guns to save lives, why not ban alcohol?
Look the stats up
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
Guns are designed to kill. Period.
Hunting to kill animals? Yes. So... long rifles and shotguns... absolutely (to qualified owners). Self defence? Yes... so again... shotguns are great for self defence (exceptional stopping power and even a poor shot could use it for such a purpose).
Handguns? To someone demonstrating need? For sure. The suburbanite doesn't need one though even though they're pretty damn fancy.
Assault rifles? Urban assault rifles poorly designed for killing animals at typical distances found in the hunting setting and excellent for killing many things at short distances in rapid succession? Even they're really fancy too... No. Just no. Except for military and initial response teams in law enforcement.
I am for gun laws, but just ones that makes sense. Some laws and restrictions are needed. Many guns in CA are banned simply because they "look mean" though and for no other reason.0 -
I would be good with amending laws already on the books to remove the semi truck size holes in them first._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
What does "fancy" have to do with any of this?Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
As soon as you said guns are really designed for target practice... you lost your point (even though it was failing from the outset).mace1229 said:I've asked this question to friends in a friendly conversation about gun control and never get a serious answer. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with this, but want a real answer. Because in my mind I don't see how you can be for one but against another.
According to CDC there were 9,967 DUI deaths in 2014. According to the FBI website there was 8,775 gun homicides in 2010.
I know the years are different, those were just the first available results when I searched their websites. I also know most sources will quote gun deaths at much higher. Those include suicides and other forms, this number from the FBI is strictly homicides...Just don't want anyone thinking I am purposely misrepresenting data.
How can you be anti gun without wanting a ban on alcohol? More are killed from DUI accidents than are murdered with a gun. The only answer I've received was "alcohol isn't designed to kill people." True that alcohol is not designed to kill people-but in reality neither are most guns. More guns are designed with target practice, hunting or self defense in mind. And 99.9% of gun owners follow the law (completely made up that stat by the way). So if you want to ban guns to save lives, why not ban alcohol?
Look the stats up
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
Guns are designed to kill. Period.
Hunting to kill animals? Yes. So... long rifles and shotguns... absolutely (to qualified owners). Self defence? Yes... so again... shotguns are great for self defence (exceptional stopping power and even a poor shot could use it for such a purpose).
Shotguns can be great for some people but what about the elderly, disabled and physically weak who can't handle the recoil? Also, a typical shotgun requires both hands to use. It's hard to fire a shotgun while dialing a phone, opening doors, holding a child, etc.
As to the accuracy, Hollywood has really done a number on the notion that you just have to point a shotgun in the general direction of your target and fire. With 00 buckshot in my shotgun, a pattern at 25 yards measures about 3 inches. Now, how many people have an open distance inside their home that is longer than 25 yards? Shotguns need to be aimed.
Handguns? To someone demonstrating need? For sure. The suburbanite doesn't need one though even though they're pretty damn fancy.
What are the criteria for demonstrating need?
"Um. Excuse me Mr. Meth Head home invader. Would you mind stopping the stabbing of me and my family inside our home so I can run down to the courthouse, establish that I need a handgun, apply for a permit, pick out a gun, wait a mandatory amount of time, bring it home, familiarize myself with gun handling and safety practices so I can shoot you?"
Assault rifles? Urban assault rifles poorly designed for killing animals at typical distances found in the hunting setting and excellent for killing many things at short distances in rapid succession? Even they're really fancy too... No. Just no. Except for military and initial response teams in law enforcement.
These are the kind of assumptions and generalizations that undermine a strong argument for the gun control crowd.Post edited by dudeman onIf hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV0 -
People need to stop looking to the Legislative Branch of the government to keep them safe.mickeyrat said:
Here in Ohio, the ONLY purchase thats recorded is the first one. I have a HUGE problem with that.dudeman said:It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.
Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not.
Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?
Yeah, no thanks.
So tell me, since you have been mostly reasonable in my book on this issue, what would you propose to prevent the guns from ever reaching the criminals in the first place. Its smply false that most come from thefts. SOME ONE is selling them. So agaiin, it comes down to traceability, holding those fucks to account.
Want to prevent guns from reaching criminal end users? Prevent people from turning to crime in the first place. Education, attention paid to family members and friends who are at risk, community outreach, employment and educational opportunities for those likely to seek gang affiliations, enforcement of existing gun laws, mental healthcare reform.....
It's no secret that gang violence accounts for a lot of bloodshed, especially in Chicago, Baltimore, LA, New Orleans and NYC. When a 14-year old kid in one of those cities can earn $5,000 in a week by dealing drugs, selling guns, robbing businesses and killing rival gang members, he's not going to finish school and apply for a job at McDonald's, even if they have a $15.00/hour minimum wage. There needs to be a more attractive option for young people to choose a lifestyle path that doesn't involve crime.
These are good places to start, IMO.If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV0 -
rgambs said:
No, the seller isn't responsible for the crime ever, only for selling the gun illegally. If the seller performs the proper background checks and resgistration processes then there is no criminality to speak of.dudeman said:It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.
Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not.
Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?
Yeah, no thanks.
It would work the same way it works with cars, with the addition of checking the purchaser for criminal history and gang connections.
Part of that is that we must be more willing to restrict which sorts of criminals, mental health risks, and personal/family ties to terrorists and gangs.
Got it. Thanks.
Also, the groups you mention in your last paragraph are already not allowed to own firearms under existing laws.If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV0 -
Yet I could still sell them one without anybody being the wiser, and face no consequences.dudeman said:rgambs said:
No, the seller isn't responsible for the crime ever, only for selling the gun illegally. If the seller performs the proper background checks and resgistration processes then there is no criminality to speak of.dudeman said:It's already a felony to sell guns to those legally barred from owning them.
Also, as has been pointed out so many times here: People are law-abiding until they're not.
Given your guidelines, a person who sells a gun to someone legally and the buyer commits a crime with that gun, the seller is responsible?
Yeah, no thanks.
It would work the same way it works with cars, with the addition of checking the purchaser for criminal history and gang connections.
Part of that is that we must be more willing to restrict which sorts of criminals, mental health risks, and personal/family ties to terrorists and gangs.
Got it. Thanks.
Also, the groups you mention in your last paragraph are already not allowed to own firearms under existing laws.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
What makes this argument difficult is that each individual may have different reasons for owning guns and shooting them. Some do it for recreational purposes, some hunt, some earn their living competing in sanctioned shooting sports, some train for self defense.......mace1229 said:
What's the point of "Punpkin Chunkin"? It's not practice in case we go back to medieval warfare. The goal is just for fun. Fireworks were (and still are) fun. I was into archery as a kid and loved it, even thinking of getting back into it. Boys like anything that shoots or goes bang. I don't t tactical training with combat scenarios, I shoot oranges and apples from my parents orchard and watch them explode.mickeyrat said:
what is really the main point or goal of target shooting or practice?mace1229 said:
I admit saying guns weren't designed to kill was a poor choice of words. I was thinking more something along the lines of the intended purpose when bought. Moving from a state (CA) where I was the only gun owner at my work in a building of about 40 people, to a state where about 90% of my coworkers own guns. (That had nothing to do with the reason for the move by the way, CA just got too expensive. My mortgage, tax and insurance on my 5 bedroom house on 1/3 acre is about $2 more than what I was paying for my half of the rent in a 2 bedroom apartment). Anyway, I know quite a few people with a wide range of firearms. A few were bought for self defense reasons, a few for hunting (killing yes, but not other people) but almost all were just for target shooting regardless of the type of firearm. All of the guns I own were purchased solely for target practice and are kept locked up with the ammo in a separate room. The last time I shot anything living was a bird in the 8th grade with a BB gun and my dad made me volunteer all summer at an animal rescue center for my punishment.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
As soon as you said guns are really designed for target practice... you lost your point (even though it was failing from the outset).mace1229 said:I've asked this question to friends in a friendly conversation about gun control and never get a serious answer. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with this, but want a real answer. Because in my mind I don't see how you can be for one but against another.
According to CDC there were 9,967 DUI deaths in 2014. According to the FBI website there was 8,775 gun homicides in 2010.
I know the years are different, those were just the first available results when I searched their websites. I also know most sources will quote gun deaths at much higher. Those include suicides and other forms, this number from the FBI is strictly homicides...Just don't want anyone thinking I am purposely misrepresenting data.
How can you be anti gun without wanting a ban on alcohol? More are killed from DUI accidents than are murdered with a gun. The only answer I've received was "alcohol isn't designed to kill people." True that alcohol is not designed to kill people-but in reality neither are most guns. More guns are designed with target practice, hunting or self defense in mind. And 99.9% of gun owners follow the law (completely made up that stat by the way). So if you want to ban guns to save lives, why not ban alcohol?
Look the stats up
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
Guns are designed to kill. Period.
Hunting to kill animals? Yes. So... long rifles and shotguns... absolutely (to qualified owners). Self defence? Yes... so again... shotguns are great for self defence (exceptional stopping power and even a poor shot could use it for such a purpose).
Handguns? To someone demonstrating need? For sure. The suburbanite doesn't need one though even though they're pretty damn fancy.
Assault rifles? Urban assault rifles poorly designed for killing animals at typical distances found in the hunting setting and excellent for killing many things at short distances in rapid succession? Even they're really fancy too... No. Just no. Except for military and initial response teams in law enforcement.
I am for gun laws, but just ones that makes sense. Some laws and restrictions are needed. Many guns in CA are banned simply because they "look mean" though and for no other reason.
If you can't keep or use a firearm responsibly you shouldn't have one, but the vast majority do.
I won't speak for anyone else but personal protection and home defense are my reasons for owning guns. I'm not a hunter, recreational or competitive shooter, combat operator or gun collector. For me, guns are tools that I hopefully never have to use.If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV0 -
rgambs said:
Hahaha I was ridiculed for saying that men shoot because of a juvenile love of bangs and explosions...mace1229 said:
What's the point of "Punpkin Chunkin"? It's not practice in case we go back to medieval warfare. The goal is just for fun. Fireworks were (and still are) fun. I was into archery as a kid and loved it, even thinking of getting back into it. Boys like anything that shoots or goes bang. I don't t tactical training with combat scenarios, I shoot oranges and apples from my parents orchard and watch them explode.mickeyrat said:
what is really the main point or goal of target shooting or practice?mace1229 said:
I admit saying guns weren't designed to kill was a poor choice of words. I was thinking more something along the lines of the intended purpose when bought. Moving from a state (CA) where I was the only gun owner at my work in a building of about 40 people, to a state where about 90% of my coworkers own guns. (That had nothing to do with the reason for the move by the way, CA just got too expensive. My mortgage, tax and insurance on my 5 bedroom house on 1/3 acre is about $2 more than what I was paying for my half of the rent in a 2 bedroom apartment). Anyway, I know quite a few people with a wide range of firearms. A few were bought for self defense reasons, a few for hunting (killing yes, but not other people) but almost all were just for target shooting regardless of the type of firearm. All of the guns I own were purchased solely for target practice and are kept locked up with the ammo in a separate room. The last time I shot anything living was a bird in the 8th grade with a BB gun and my dad made me volunteer all summer at an animal rescue center for my punishment.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
As soon as you said guns are really designed for target practice... you lost your point (even though it was failing from the outset).mace1229 said:I've asked this question to friends in a friendly conversation about gun control and never get a serious answer. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with this, but want a real answer. Because in my mind I don't see how you can be for one but against another.
According to CDC there were 9,967 DUI deaths in 2014. According to the FBI website there was 8,775 gun homicides in 2010.
I know the years are different, those were just the first available results when I searched their websites. I also know most sources will quote gun deaths at much higher. Those include suicides and other forms, this number from the FBI is strictly homicides...Just don't want anyone thinking I am purposely misrepresenting data.
How can you be anti gun without wanting a ban on alcohol? More are killed from DUI accidents than are murdered with a gun. The only answer I've received was "alcohol isn't designed to kill people." True that alcohol is not designed to kill people-but in reality neither are most guns. More guns are designed with target practice, hunting or self defense in mind. And 99.9% of gun owners follow the law (completely made up that stat by the way). So if you want to ban guns to save lives, why not ban alcohol?
Look the stats up
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
Guns are designed to kill. Period.
Hunting to kill animals? Yes. So... long rifles and shotguns... absolutely (to qualified owners). Self defence? Yes... so again... shotguns are great for self defence (exceptional stopping power and even a poor shot could use it for such a purpose).
Handguns? To someone demonstrating need? For sure. The suburbanite doesn't need one though even though they're pretty damn fancy.
Assault rifles? Urban assault rifles poorly designed for killing animals at typical distances found in the hunting setting and excellent for killing many things at short distances in rapid succession? Even they're really fancy too... No. Just no. Except for military and initial response teams in law enforcement.
I am for gun laws, but just ones that makes sense. Some laws and restrictions are needed. Many guns in CA are banned simply because they "look mean" though and for no other reason.
If you can't keep or use a firearm responsibly you shouldn't have one, but the vast majority do.
You were ridiculed for saying that everyone shoots for the same reasons.If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV0 -
Stickman12 said:
I am against any additional gun restriction or legislation until current laws are enforced. There is no data out there to support that our current laws are being enforced to any degree that is effective. You use alcohol in your example. Alcohol is responsible for a large amount of deaths but alcohol laws are enforced on a consistent basis. If the enforcement of current laws is not adequate then by all means adopt more legislation to attempt to solve the problem. If on the other hand, little to no enforcement of the law is being done, then new laws will accomplish nothing to the problem. Ok.......attack away.mace1229 said:
I admit saying guns weren't designed to kill was a poor choice of words. I was thinking more something along the lines of the intended purpose when bought. Moving from a state (CA) where I was the only gun owner at my work in a building of about 40 people, to a state where about 90% of my coworkers own guns. (That had nothing to do with the reason for the move by the way, CA just got too expensive. My mortgage, tax and insurance on my 5 bedroom house on 1/3 acre is about $2 more than what I was paying for my half of the rent in a 2 bedroom apartment). Anyway, I know quite a few people with a wide range of firearms. A few were bought for self defense reasons, a few for hunting (killing yes, but not other people) but almost all were just for target shooting regardless of the type of firearm. All of the guns I own were purchased solely for target practice and are kept locked up with the ammo in a separate room. The last time I shot anything living was a bird in the 8th grade with a BB gun and my dad made me volunteer all summer at an animal rescue center for my punishment.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
As soon as you said guns are really designed for target practice... you lost your point (even though it was failing from the outset).mace1229 said:I've asked this question to friends in a friendly conversation about gun control and never get a serious answer. I'm not trying to persuade anyone with this, but want a real answer. Because in my mind I don't see how you can be for one but against another.
According to CDC there were 9,967 DUI deaths in 2014. According to the FBI website there was 8,775 gun homicides in 2010.
I know the years are different, those were just the first available results when I searched their websites. I also know most sources will quote gun deaths at much higher. Those include suicides and other forms, this number from the FBI is strictly homicides...Just don't want anyone thinking I am purposely misrepresenting data.
How can you be anti gun without wanting a ban on alcohol? More are killed from DUI accidents than are murdered with a gun. The only answer I've received was "alcohol isn't designed to kill people." True that alcohol is not designed to kill people-but in reality neither are most guns. More guns are designed with target practice, hunting or self defense in mind. And 99.9% of gun owners follow the law (completely made up that stat by the way). So if you want to ban guns to save lives, why not ban alcohol?
Look the stats up
http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
Guns are designed to kill. Period.
Hunting to kill animals? Yes. So... long rifles and shotguns... absolutely (to qualified owners). Self defence? Yes... so again... shotguns are great for self defence (exceptional stopping power and even a poor shot could use it for such a purpose).
Handguns? To someone demonstrating need? For sure. The suburbanite doesn't need one though even though they're pretty damn fancy.
Assault rifles? Urban assault rifles poorly designed for killing animals at typical distances found in the hunting setting and excellent for killing many things at short distances in rapid succession? Even they're really fancy too... No. Just no. Except for military and initial response teams in law enforcement.
I am for gun laws, but just ones that makes sense. Some laws and restrictions are needed. Many guns in CA are banned simply because they "look mean" though and for no other reason.
This.If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV0 -
mickeyrat said:
I would be good with amending laws already on the books to remove the semi truck size holes in them first.
The current laws shouldn't need to be amended, just enforced. If someone sells a gun to someone not legally allowed to own one, they have committed a federal crime. The problem is a lack of investigation.
I read somewhere that out of every ten-thousand or so NICS checks that determine that someone is ineligible to own guns, less than 70 even result in an inquiry. That needed to be addressed like, 10 years ago.If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help