Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Official Gun Control Thread. « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 40

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7109
Online
#150 : June 13, 2013, 05:54:40 PM

The reality is that the only thing that would be permitted are single shot rifles and shotguns and paintball guns. And even that would be heavily restricted.

I don't begrudge him for this opinion but I disagree because I like guns. I also like the idea I can defend myself and my close friends and relatives from predators or should the sheeite hit the fan in some manner. The cops won't get there fast enough in the first situation and won't be around at all in the latter. Back in 2004 for example when we got schlacked by Hurricanes. We had no power for a week, the roads were blocked for 2 days, the cops were busy elsewhere and a number of people we did not know mosied around our neighborhood. I am convinced to this day that only the sight of armed citizens made them go elsewhere.

It is a philosophical and personal difference in beliefs.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#151 : June 13, 2013, 05:58:19 PM

There are restrictions on where and how you can carry guns, not so much on how you can acquire them. Of course, this varies from region to region, but generally speaking, it's easier to get a gun than it is to buy a case of beer if you don't have a head full of gray hair in some regions of the country. This is partly due to legal loopholes, and partly due to the fact that the ATF has been rendered virtually toothless by the gun lobby. So to say that guns are heavily restricted isn't all that accurate. They are regulated, not restricted, and even the regulatory procedures are piecemeal at best.


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7109
Online
#152 : June 13, 2013, 06:08:55 PM

There are restrictions on where and how you can carry guns, not so much on how you can acquire them. Of course, this varies from region to region, but generally speaking, it's easier to get a gun than it is to buy a case of beer if you don't have a head full of gray hair in some regions of the country. This is partly due to legal loopholes, and partly due to the fact that the ATF has been rendered virtually toothless by the gun lobby. So to say that guns are heavily restricted isn't all that accurate. They are regulated, not restricted, and even the regulatory procedures are piecemeal at best.

I am going to take the beer reference as hyperbole.

Not sure if I agree with your reasoning, but I do agree that south of canon and fully automatic weapons guns are regulated and not restricted. That is a fair statement, except in places like California for example.

My opinion is that you if are responsible enough to own a handgun you are responsible enough to own an ar-15. Anything in between are people who don't want you to own anything but don't think they can get a total ban in place. Let's face it if I am going to shoot you dead do you really care what I did it with?

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#153 : June 13, 2013, 06:47:32 PM

There are restrictions on where and how you can carry guns, not so much on how you can acquire them. Of course, this varies from region to region, but generally speaking, it's easier to get a gun than it is to buy a case of beer if you don't have a head full of gray hair in some regions of the country. This is partly due to legal loopholes, and partly due to the fact that the ATF has been rendered virtually toothless by the gun lobby. So to say that guns are heavily restricted isn't all that accurate. They are regulated, not restricted, and even the regulatory procedures are piecemeal at best.

I am going to take the beer reference as hyperbole.

33 states don't require background checks, or even a license or ID to purchase firearms at gun shows if you are buying from a private dealer, so no, not hyperbole. In many regions of the country it is easier to legally purchase a firearm than it is a case of beer.

My opinion is that you if are responsible enough to own a handgun you are responsible enough to own an ar-15. Anything in between are people who don't want you to own anything but don't think they can get a total ban in place. Let's face it if I am going to shoot you dead do you really care what I did it with?

The question isn't really whether you are responsible or not, the question is are we making sure that the people who acquire these weapons are responsible, and the answer to that question is no.

Also, I don't think the real fallacy lies in the difference between semi-automatic rifles and handguns. The real fallacy lies in the notion that semi-automatic rifles are somehow safer or less dangerous than fully automatic ones.

A six shot revolver, for example, is just as effective as a means of personal security as a semi-automatic handgun or rifle. However, in terms of shooting up a school, movie theater, or opening fire on a group of rival gang members or law enforcement officers, a six shot revolver becomes far less effective, whereas there is virtually no difference in effect between a semi-automatic rifle and a fully automatic one in that regard.


CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20286
Offline
#154 : June 13, 2013, 07:06:28 PM

The problem with "reasonable" restrictions lies in the question of who will be the arbiter of what is reasonable. Is it you? Because I've heard you make the claim that there are no restrictions on guns, when, in fact, they are heavily restricted. Reasonable just isn't in your reportoir. Rhetoric and poorly thought-out "solutions" are.

Since I can buy an ar15 right now online or at a gun show or from a friend, even if I was a criminal or crazy person,  there are no meaningful restrictions on guns, sorry

As I have posted many times, each side has a different view of reasonable. The two will either work it out or the decision as to what is reasonable will be taken out if one of boths hands. That is how it always works.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17773
Online
#155 : June 13, 2013, 07:38:01 PM

The problem with "reasonable" restrictions lies in the question of who will be the arbiter of what is reasonable.

Exactly.

Some jackass bureaucrat 1000 miles away in Washington DC is going to tell me what's "reasonable" for me to have here in Florida ....I don't freakin think so.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20286
Offline
#156 : June 13, 2013, 07:58:02 PM

The problem with "reasonable" restrictions lies in the question of who will be the arbiter of what is reasonable.

Exactly.

Some jackass bureaucrat 1000 miles away in Washington DC is going to tell me what's "reasonable" for me to have here in Florida ....I don't freakin think so.

That is EXACTLY what will happen eventually and you'll have Wayne to thank

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17773
Online
#157 : June 13, 2013, 08:06:37 PM

Unlike the Comrade and the Scarecrow  , I usually respect your opinion Vince  , but I can't believe you endorse this crap.


What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20286
Offline
#158 : June 13, 2013, 08:09:11 PM

Unlike the Comrade and the Scarecrow  , I usually respect your opinion Vince  , but I can't believe you endorse this crap.



You mean gun control?

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7109
Online
#159 : June 13, 2013, 09:31:08 PM


The question isn't really whether you are responsible or not, the question is are we making sure that the people who acquire these weapons are responsible, and the answer to that question is no.

As decided by whom? You? Based on what?

I am pretty confident there is a bunch of redneck hicks out there that have been using firearms since they were in diapers that you would not consider intelligent or responsible enough to take a **CENSORED**, but I bet they are a lot more responsible with firearms than those who want to ban them are.


Also, I don't think the real fallacy lies in the difference between semi-automatic rifles and handguns. The real fallacy lies in the notion that semi-automatic rifles are somehow safer or less dangerous than fully automatic ones.

A six shot revolver, for example, is just as effective as a means of personal security as a semi-automatic handgun or rifle. However, in terms of shooting up a school, movie theater, or opening fire on a group of rival gang members or law enforcement officers, a six shot revolver becomes far less effective, whereas there is virtually no difference in effect between a semi-automatic rifle and a fully automatic one in that regard.

You might be a sniper, but I am not. If someone breaks into my house at midnight I am thinking 6 bullets in the pitch black leaves me a bit worried. Ever been in combat? I have, and I can guarantee you the first 3 or 4 rounds (at least) will go nowhere near where you intended them to go. If there is more than 1 bad guy, you are cutting it really, really fine. I am not trying to denigrate you here, but I am trying to show that for those who don't really know guns, what they might THINK is adequate is nothing of the sort. My home defense weapon used to be a semi automatic handgun with a 15 round magazine. It is now a pump action shotgun because I realized I did not want to get into a firefight in the middle of the night.

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7109
Online
#160 : June 13, 2013, 09:35:52 PM


33 states don't require background checks, or even a license or ID to purchase firearms at gun shows if you are buying from a private dealer, so no, not hyperbole. In many regions of the country it is easier to legally purchase a firearm than it is a case of beer.


OK, I will give you that one, but will follow it up with the question .. Have you ever been to a gunshow?

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20286
Offline
#161 : June 13, 2013, 09:37:49 PM


The question isn't really whether you are responsible or not, the question is are we making sure that the people who acquire these weapons are responsible, and the answer to that question is no.

As decided by whom? You? Based on what?

I am pretty confident there is a bunch of redneck hicks out there that have been using firearms since they were in diapers that you would not consider intelligent or responsible enough to take a **CENSORED**, but I bet they are a lot more responsible with firearms than those who want to ban them are.


Also, I don't think the real fallacy lies in the difference between semi-automatic rifles and handguns. The real fallacy lies in the notion that semi-automatic rifles are somehow safer or less dangerous than fully automatic ones.

A six shot revolver, for example, is just as effective as a means of personal security as a semi-automatic handgun or rifle. However, in terms of shooting up a school, movie theater, or opening fire on a group of rival gang members or law enforcement officers, a six shot revolver becomes far less effective, whereas there is virtually no difference in effect between a semi-automatic rifle and a fully automatic one in that regard.

You might be a sniper, but I am not. If someone breaks into my house at midnight I am thinking 6 bullets in the pitch black leaves me a bit worried. Ever been in combat? I have, and I can guarantee you the first 3 or 4 rounds (at least) will go nowhere near where you intended them to go. If there is more than 1 bad guy, you are cutting it really, really fine. I am not trying to denigrate you here, but I am trying to show that for those who don't really know guns, what they might THINK is adequate is nothing of the sort. My home defense weapon used to be a semi automatic handgun with a 15 round magazine. It is now a pump action shotgun because I realized I did not want to get into a firefight in the middle of the night.

With whom?

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20286
Offline
#162 : June 13, 2013, 09:49:55 PM

he built the assault rifle from parts:

"LOS ANGELES (AP) John Zawahri, who killed five people in a rampage in Santa Monica last week, apparently built his own assault weapon, using it to shoot his father and brother before he set fire to their family home, officials said Thursday.
Two officials who were briefed on the investigation said the semi-automatic weapon appears to have been built with component parts that are legal to obtain, but put together make the rifle illegal in California. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the investigation."

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

Escobar06

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2565
Offline
#163 : June 13, 2013, 11:30:44 PM

Someone ignored the law when the goal was to shoot some people? I'm shocked ::)


If only countries in the middle east would pass strict gun laws ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)


CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20286
Offline
#164 : June 14, 2013, 07:10:39 AM

Someone ignored the law when the goal was to shoot some people? I'm shocked ::)


If only countries in the middle east would pass strict gun laws ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Lol

Translated: "if its not a perfect solution, do nothing .. Because we all know what you really want is to take ALL the guns"

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center
Page: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 ... 40
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Official Gun Control Thread. « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools