Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gun people otherwise offer nothing in terms of ways and means to reduce the horrific toll of gun-related death and mayhem we suffer from in this country.
What an outright lie! Many people over many threads have offered solutions. YOU refuse to acknowledge any solution that doesn't involve gun confiscation.
You CLAIM to be concerned about saving lives and that it's not about taking guns away. If that were true you would be going after things that take a much bigger toll than guns...
I have to wonder how many of these active shooter incidents have to occur until you people are willing to do something....anything about it.
I'm resigned to not being able to do anything about the gun side of the equation, but maybe we can do something about the crazy person side. These guys all fit the same profile - young, male, isolated, anti-social, posts bizarre stuff on the internet. Surely we can figure out something.
I'm a faculty member at a community college in Oregon. The teacher in that Umpqua classroom was the first to go down; that could have been me. I know a lot of my students have some mental health issues and I have to wonder if one of them will snap and execute me for giving them a D or something.
I'm not proud of this, but I'm going to get CHL and start carrying (which is allowed at my campus with a valid license but "strongly discouraged" according to our handbook).
Since society and government will do nothing, I at least want to give myself a fighting chance against the next crazy person that snaps. It's sad that we've come to this.
I don't know why we continue to debate the issue of gun ownership. What we're really discussing is the legality of the situation, not the reality. The reality is that no North American (yes, we have lots of guns in Canada too) is going to hand over his/her gun(s) to the government without a lot of .gov agents getting killed. Most people have at least a hunting rifle (or two or six), and they aren't about to let anyone tell them that because some sociopath shot off an oozie, they now have to pay for meat. Same goes for fishing equipment.
If guns were banned, do those who oppose gun ownership honestly think the same sociopath who used a gun to mow down kids in a school, wouldn't use a Molotov cocktail? Or any one of literally dozens of kinds of easily manufactured explosives?
Nope, we always come back to the same commonsense statement: Guns don't kill people; people kill people.
...........I really don't see why anyone, other than the cops and military, should have the ability to STOCK UP on guns and ammunition. Sure, I can see having a single gun if you live in a city/suburb if you're scared in your home and maybe a few if you live in a rural area....even in those scenarios, no one really needs to have a gun that can fire many times before re-loading. And only a tiny fraction of people need to be able to have like more than 10 bullets at any given time. I live in TX, a totally gun loving state, which was a bit of a culture shock. I see no reason why people I know should have multiple guns as a HOBBY.
Well, A, B, and C, perhaps somewhat in reverse order.
A: Recognize that marksmanship is a perishable skill. It is something that people need to practice regularly in order to keep proficient at it. Sure, one can probably always point a gun in the direction of the standing still target, pull the trigger, and have a reasonable chance of hitting the target, but add in more complexities, such as practicing moving in and out of cover, and the lack of one's practice will really become apparent. So that brings us to B.
B: At the high point of cheap, available ammunition (when the stocks meant for WW III were put on the market), a weekly training session might have meant 250 rounds of pistol and 100 rounds of rifle. The training bouts for pistol might have been, 1 handed right, 1 handed left, 2 handed right, 2 handed left, combat left handed, combat right handed, firing on decock (need for more trigger pressure), special circumstances (ie, firing with heavy winter gloves on).
These days, however, ammo is not cheap, not always available, so my bouts get seriously cut down to perhaps 100 rounds of pistol and 20 rounds of rifle. Further, just to mention, back in high school in the 70's, we shot 4 days a week during the school year with .22 rifles (513T or 40X), perhaps 40 rounds or so a day.
As said in other posts, I'm something of a professional shooter. I am not expected to miss, I am expected to practice (if in anything else, if I have to shoot, in court the opposing council will try to use a lack of practice against me), and I work to maintain the skills I learned in the military/JROTC, so many decades ago.
C: So then we come down to the need to maintain training stocks. Two things. First of all, ammo might be seen like recording media in that it could be here one day and gone the next. The reasons are different to why but consider the 4X DVD disk. Still possible to get I suppose, it's been years since I bought 600 of them from a mail order store since I couldn't get them at the store anymore. At the time, I had machines that still needed them. The technology had gone to the faster disk, they were no longer popular in the main consumer market, and they were gone from the easy store shelf.
We live in a demand and supply driven world for much of our stuff. If you want what everyone wants, you can probably get it anytime you want it. If on the other hand, you want what a few want, then you are probably going to buy up as much as you can when it shows up on the shelves.
Add to that that we are conditioned to buy in bulk. Two for one sales. Two six packs of beer. Sam's Club. This is the consumer world we exist in.
So why do we find it so strange when someone has another consumable in mass? It comes from the same consumer world.
There is, of course, the further complication in that the supply of ammo fluctuates widely in availability, in price. Hence, if one needs it, it is to their benefit to buy it when it is there, when they can.
Just as an interest point to this, right now when I go to the range, I buy a box of their stuff. It would be much cheaper to me to use my stocks but I buy theirs since I know, there are better odds that they will have always some to sell to me.................than me being able to restock my supplies. It's that kind of world.
It's not as if anyone argues that guns get up by themselves and shoot people. Many of us just don't see a reason why so many people need to have the ability to kill people so easily and so MANY of them (as you can with a gun).
As most of us know, there was a recent attack in China on elementary school kids which left 22 wounded. If the guy had a gun, it would have been like Newton, CT. Sure, a knife can also kill (happened in China a few yrs ago), but in general, it takes longer and is harder (which would give others time to stop the attacker).
I really don't see why anyone, other than the cops and military, should have the ability to STOCK UP on guns and ammunition. Sure, I can see having a single gun if you live in a city/suburb if you're scared in your home and maybe a few if you live in a rural area....even in those scenarios, no one really needs to have a gun that can fire many times before re-loading. And only a tiny fraction of people need to be able to have like more than 10 bullets at any given time. I live in TX, a totally gun loving state, which was a bit of a culture shock. I see no reason why people I know should have multiple guns as a HOBBY.
Just, WOOOOOOOOOOOOW. WOW.
Cops don't go trigger happy? And our military is sent over to kill thousands, hundred thousands, millions on the other side of the world. Mostly, or--I dare say--almost entirely for BS reasons.
You don't like guns? You don't understand gun culture? You don't have to. No way in hell should citizens be stripped of their arms though.
Not at all what I said. "Lets compare those numbers to two far more deadly problems": How do you get any of what you posted from that?
It was easy and still is. Your special pleading seeks to shift focus away from guns and onto these "far more deadly problems", when the only rational response would be to seek a reduction in the harm being done by ALL of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltergulick
However, if you could remove something not constitutionally guaranteed to us, and eliminate a far greater number of injuries and deaths why wouldn't you?
See the above. And what has been constitutionally guaranteed to you for seven long years now is an individual right to own firearms for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within your own home. There remains ample room for control over the manufacture of and trafficking in guns and ammunition, and some of that might well be useful in limiting the awful damage done by guns in this country.
But gun nuts will not admit to any of it. Basically, they JUST DON'T CARE about the wanton carnage that guns continually produce. Oregon is just the latest example of it that they will ignore. Other examples are so common that they don't even make the news. 30,000 people die every year from gunshot wounds and nearly 200,000 are wounded grievously enough to require a trip to the ER. Because of the damage that bullets do as they tumble and ricochet around inside the body, gunshot wounds are among the most difficult and expensive of injuries to treat. Vast amounts of medical training and resources are wasted each year on injuries that should never have been allowed to happen to begin with.
Last edited by Reynard32; 10-03-2015 at 10:06 AM..
What an outright lie! Many people over many threads have offered solutions. YOU refuse to acknowledge any solution that doesn't involve gun confiscation.
No, you all just do an after-the-fact rebranding of all perps as lunatics, and then claim that we should have better mental health programs. That you would NOT be willing to pay any additional taxes for. A rose by any other name...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyborgt800
You CLAIM to be concerned about saving lives and that it's not about taking guns away. If that were true you would be going after things that take a much bigger toll than guns...
We are "going after" other things. Are you so blind as to not be able to see that? And YOU are the only folks who talk about confiscation. The NRA has driven the fear of that deep into the psyches of as many people as possible. It's become just a knee-jerk reflex for some.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
