Ok let's try another approach. Re: Guns

[walldude]

The insane DU rant approach just got me locked. Let's be more reasonable. Let me explain why people like me don't really care for guns. They do nothing for me. My values direct me towards creation. I like to build things, I like to grow things, I like to make music. You want to find fault in that be my guest. Guns don't create anything they destroy things. Not that there is anything wrong with that, I love to see stuff get blowed up. It's just not something I feel that strongly about doing myself. I have never felt the need to "protect myself" with one, but I understand that people live in places where they do need to. Personally I'd rather pick up a guitar than a weapon so I live in a low crime place.
Now I wouldn't want to suppose my values on others so go ahead and play with your guns. But there has to be limits. I know a red flag goes up when you hear that, the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms and all that, but even you Mr Assault Weapons user must admit you don't want a neighbor with Scuds, Tanks and Nukes in his front yard. So there has to be a limit somewhere.

A person like me would ask why a gun should be any different than a car. It is a deadly weapon and should be treated with the utmost respect. Yet I read about an 8 year old who was given a loaded UZI and promptly shot himself in the head right in front of his father and the gun safety expert. Does an 8 year old really need to know how to fire an Uzi? Was it worth his life? Where do you put the limits? If you insist that the 2nd amendment be followed to the letter then you open it up to Joe the Freeper having a small thermonuclear device in his basement. There has to be a limit. We just need to figure out exactly where it is.

[zagging]

1. If you really are curious about it

Move it to the gungeon and you will be duly educated about RKBA. There are a bunch of folks there who will debate you with gusto till the cows come home.

[walldude]

3. Man, I aint goin in there

I'm crazy not stupid. Won't go in the religion one either...

[zagging]

6. Why not?

They have the answers you are looking for, otherwise this appears to be a fishing expedition. If your mind is really curious about this issue and you are really looking for educated input, that's where this should be posted.

[Xenotime]

7. Smart move.

[zagging]

9. True

They know their stuff and this issue has been dispatched numerous times.

[EOTE]

11. Care to give us a brief synopsis?

I'm curious. If it's been dispatched so many times, you should be able to briefly describle how.

[zagging]

15. I'll wing it

-Thermonuclear devices are not considered "Arms" in the context of the 2nd. "Arms" in this context are what a soldier or militia member might carry. So, there is a limit, however poorly defined.

-You can own a car on your private property and not get it licensed or registered.

-Prohibitions do not work. Consider the war on drugs. If your neighbor has a gun and he's a bad guy, you had better have equal or better fire power if he gets nasty.

-To say guns don't create anything is ridiculous in the context of an RKBA debate.

Really, if the OP is interested in detailed answers, the gungeon is the place to debate this.

[awoke_in_2003]

17. "To say guns don't create anything is ridiculous"

Of course it's ridiculous. They create holes in things :)

[zagging]

2. As a matter of fact

All you have to do is read the gungeon threads and all your questions will be answered dozens of times.

[auntsue]

4. I am with you

regarding limits and licensing. I just don't want a total ban. Maybe I'm paranoid but I don't like gov't telling me what I can't do.
I guess I think people should have to demonstrate a level of skill and responsibility - like with a car -
Where I live now I don't feel the need for a weapon - but if I was out more rural I might just want to have something to use while waiting for help

[Demobrat]

5. That ship has sailed. This country is awash in guns.

Anybody who wants to can get one, legally or illegally, Saturday night special or Uzi, doesn't matter. I think we should just admit that the rights of people who are afraid to go through life unarmed outweigh by far those of their innocent victims and stop acting shocked and appalled every time there's a school or workplace shooting. We decided a long time ago, as a society, that everybody who wants a gun is entitled to own one, under whatever circumstances they choose, and that gun company profits are far, far more important than human life. It's a done deal. Get over it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. Nice sweeping generalizations.

[mudesi]

8. The gun issue is *THE* litmus test for me

The gun nuts are not liberals, period.

[AuntPatsy]

13. How do you determine one to be a what you call Gun nut?

[ZombieHorde]

32. Any nut who's shape resembles a gun. Peanuts are the most common gun nuts.

[Pavulon]

14. Mine too, people who babble ban rather than address root

cause because it is not look good feel good are not honest with themselves. We ban shit all the time, yet people die from IV drug use.

With firearms you can look at concentrations in populations of semi rural and suburban areas with low crime rates and compare that to high inner city crime. There is no correlation with legal gun ownership and crime.

No one want to address the impact of poverty, the drug war, and culture that stack the most bodies. Suicide is generally preventable and happens because of shitty care.

I am happy with reasonable gun control that is in place.

What do you guys suggest we change to make DC like Geneva or Zurich?

[WindRiverMan]

18. I actually take a totally different viewpoint.

Liberals are all about personal choice and freedom to do as you please without government intervention. Truth be told, I think abortion is taking a human life. I have heard all of the arguments, not life but potential for life, blah, blah, blah. However, I also think that what a woman choses to do with her body and what she will or will not commit to for a period of nine months is her choice, it's not mine to make, and I support their right to chose. I also don't understand the homosexual lifestyle. I don't believe it is a choice, but then again, I am smart enough to know that I don't have the answers. I know one thing though, what two grown adults choose to do with their lives is none of my damned business, and the government should keep their noses out of it as well.


Liberals are all about keeping their noses out of other people's businesses and living and let live, unless of course, it's guns. Then they need to be regulated, restricted, need government permission to own one, and on and on and on. Oh yeah, and if you're fat. DU liberals don't like fatties either.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

20. Liberals are also open minded and in favor of civil rights.

[aikoaiko]

23. maybe some aren't, but the anti-gun nuts are certainly not liberals.

[Qibing Zero]

30. So I gather you two won't be hanging out then

Titles are lame.. whether it's 'patriotic', 'liberal', 'progressive', or otherwise.

[aikoaiko]

36. Lame is lame.

;)

[Edweird]

34. I think control freak lying asshole gun grabbers aren't liberals.

Your opinion is just as insignificant as mine is.

[dysfunctional press]

10. treating them like cars, in regard to registration and even licensing would be fine by me...

instead of a FOIA card, there could be a license to own guns, which would be obtained by proving at a range with a state tester/instructor, that you are capable of safely handling/shooting a firearm.

[Pavulon]

16. Poll tax

I can pay for that time. I can pay for the RIGHT to own a weapon of my choice.

However if a person can not pay for range time and instructor time (300 ish for a ccw, a reasonable "training" program) should they be denied access?

You could just ban guns for poor people. They do most of the killing.

Accurate data but not root cause and not fair..

[dysfunctional press]

35. yes.

people who cannot safely operate a firearm have no business owning one.

[aikoaiko]

37. Interestinly enough one does not need to register a car if kept off of public roads.

Or have a license to drive it.

[dysfunctional press]

39. nothing new- it's always been that way.

my dad grew up on a farm, and was driving a pickup around the property when he was 12.

[Redneck Socialist]

12. What's your point?

On Edit: Ah ok, I just found your other thread. You seem a little unclear on the difference between assault rifles and so called "assault weapons." That's ok, lots of people aren't clear on the distinction.

Assault rifles are select fire weapons capable of full auto fire and are strictly regulated and have been since 1934. The rather confusingly termed "assault weapons" are semi auto rifles patterned after military weapons and are some of the most popular sporting arms in the US.

The old assault weapons ban didn't really ban much. It regulated firearms based on cosmetic features such as bayonet lugs. Frankly, it was silly. It accomplished nothing more than to forever hang the "gun grabber" millstone about the Democratic Party's neck.

[ManiacJoe]

19. Yes, come over to the guns forum.

There are lots of smart people there willing to help with any technical questions you have regarding guns and the laws that govern them. (And, yes, any such discussion will quickly become a technical discussion.)

[aikoaiko]

22. So it comes down to: You don't want a gun so other people can't have certain guns.

Is it really so difficult for you to understand that some people want same firearms that police use to defend themselves from violent criminals? You know those criminals who are usually victimizing law abiding cilvilians in the first place.

No one is forcing you to keep and bear arms, but I urge you to not support laws that prevent people from owning the firearms of their choice.

[BlooInBloo]

25. (shrug) If y'all can't stop your 6 year olds from killing your 4 year olds on your own...

Then I have no problem with a little bit of reasonable help being offered to you.

Really, you guys have had 200 years to make this into a non-issue. But y'all just insist on killing each other. And then the last one standing proudly announces that he don't need no stinkin nanny state.

It's really funny, looked at in a certain (macabre) way.

[aikoaiko]

26. Tragedies happen. Sometimes with guns, cars, swimming pools, medicine. etc.

I'm all for minimizing these tragedies, but not by banning guns.

[BlooInBloo]

27. Banning guns? Whoa. Hardcore.

[aikoaiko]

31. I don't understand your response.

[slackmaster]

41. There are a few small-thinking people who say we should ban them completely

When you press them for details, they inevitably admit that they really want only governments to have guns.

[BlooInBloo]

24. "they destroy things" - If by "things" you mean "people", then yes....

I don't have a per se problem with destroying things. Destroying people is quite another matter, in my book.

[Qibing Zero]

28. While people are much much more important..

Using resources to create weapons that are used to destroy other resources is a horrible thing. What justification is there for such utter waste of resources when people in this world go hungry?

[aikoaiko]

38. Self--defense is suitable justification for the use of resources.

Its better to be hungry than dead.

[ZombieHorde]

29. "My values direct me towards creation."

To create is to destroy. Some creations require more destruction than others. For example, a song written in your head vs. a song written on a piece of paper.

[Edweird]

33. The limits have already been set. It's called the National Firearms Act.

"If you insist that the 2nd amendment be followed to the letter then you open it up to Joe the Freeper having a small thermonuclear device in his basement." That is total bullshit. It is a LIE.

"There has to be a limit. We just need to figure out exactly where it is."

It's right here:
http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfa.htm
http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/nfa/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

To suggest that "there are no limits" is a flat out lie. To suggest that reasonable limits have not already been set, is as well a flat out lie.

Oh, and for the record: I build things PROFESSIONALLY.
I also make music too. You think you're so special?

[slackmaster]

40. If you don't like guns, don't buy one and don't allow them in your home

A person like me would ask why a gun should be any different than a car. It is a deadly weapon and should be treated with the utmost respect.

You don't need a license to own a car, and a license to drive one allows you to drive it on public roads anywhere.

There has to be a limit. We just need to figure out exactly where it is.

We have a limit already. It was set in 1934 with the passage of the National Firearms Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

[jmg257]

42. Ok then... 1) I like guitars AND guns. Now what? 2) You REALLY won't

find too many pro-gun people here who think the 2nd entitles anyone to scuds, tanks etc. Instead, you will likely find that those pro-gun people here actually understand why the 2nd was ratified, what the limits were/are and why. The National Firearm Act has put limits on full auto weapons like the Uzi you mentioned, so the limit is exactly there. If YOU took the time to understand all that too, you may find Mr "Assault Weapon" users are in keeping with the primary reason for the 2nd, as well as the private purposes, and so pretty much see these semi autos as a practical, reasonable limit, as well as a constitutional one. Military style semi-auto rifles (so-called "assault weapons") are very popular, are mostly legal to keep and bear (some states say otherwise), and happen to fit in nicely with the militia purposes of the 2nd, as well as for self-defense, sporting and other lawful purposes. Their use in crimes is also extremely low.

As for the 8 yr old who shot himself - no question someone screwed up. No question shooting an Uzi isn't worth his life. Unfortunately, tragic things happen, even to kids. There is no fault in that opinion. What is troubling is that so many people only seem to get concerned when guns are involved, because THEY don't like guns. A bit silly to only post about gun-related deaths and to ignore so many other reasons why kids die, isn't it?

"An 8-year-old girl swimming in the Hudson River with a group of children drowned Saturday, the police said. Holly Fitzgerald of Hadley drowned about 3 P.M. in Warrensburg, about 60 miles north of Albany, according to the Warren County Sheriff's department. The girl had stayed in the river after the other children got out of the water."

"May 14, 2008 ... Prince William County (web|news) authorities say a woman lost her 8-year-old son in a car crash on Mother's Day."

etc. etc. etc.

some number:
3017 - number of children 0-16 who died in MV accidents 2005
840 - number of children 0-16 who drowned in 2005
452 - number of children 0-16 who died from fire in 2005
207 - number of children 0-16 who suffocated in 2005
163 - number of children 0-16 who die from falls in 2005
...
102 - number of children 0-16 who died from firearm related accidents in 2005



We KNOW where the limits are, the problem is that others insist on changing them - for no sensible reason.