It's insane that civilians can buy assault rifles (fast food, Dihydrogen monoxide, Michigan)

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by LearnMe

Again, not my argument or point...

Interesting to compare the guns used by Lewis and Clark to those used by Paddock, but I guess "where there is a will, there is a way."

"Again, not my argument or point..."

Well, I have been reading your anti-gun posts for a long time time, I think back to Sandy Hook, and your ONLY point is your are AGAINST civilian gun ownership.

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by LearnMe

Again, I understand the arguments -- the good ones -- as to why banning weapons is hardly as effective or productive as ANYONE might like to think, but "the left with its fear mongering?" Come on now...

You're right it isn't just fear mongering that guns are bad. It's even in your own words a few posts back how you have a supercilious attitude that those who own firearms are uneducated or immature.

These were your words were they not?

Now my kids are young adults (approaching 30), and they don't view fire or guns in any manner like you describe. Why? Because they are intelligent young well-balanced people who pass judgement about such things in a reasoned and mature manner.

You argued I don't understand the context, when I clearly expressed my context and your context in bold is that of equating a firearms enthusiast to that of uneducated imbalanced and immature since you raised children without firearms present in the house the noted pat on your back... comes off as those who view firearms in a positive light are immature, uneducated, imbalanced...

Originally Posted by LearnMe

One of the aspects about gun violence not so well captured by all the statistics people like to swap is what sort of society people want to live in.

Easy. One where constitutionally backed rights are not infringed upon. I don't care that my fellow man/woman is armed. That is their right to be. Regardless whether they have 1 or 100, whether for hunting, target shooting/sporting, defense of property and life, defense from tyranny. Makes no difference to me. It is their right and I wouldn't care if they had a 20mm tank buster from a A10 or a 22 pistol. It's a protected right, one they can exercise as they see fit. Who am I to judge and declare what they can and can not have? I have no supreme attributes or powers. It's not my place to tell anyone how they should live their life or how they should arm themselves. That's the society I seek to live in, one that allows un-abridged rights for individuals.

Originally Posted by LearnMe

Of course there are those steeped in the "gun culture," and again I get that, but for a very large number of Americans, it isn't just the number of murders and acts of violence committed with guns.

1. Can you define this "gun culture", is it clearly defined or is it a subjective interpretation/opinion?
2. Murders and acts of violence are the only issue.

If someone wants to lay in front of a train to off themselves let them, it is their life to live and die as they see fit... Would you seek banning access to rails or ban trains on the basis of 21k suicides by train? How about bridges? There's the Golden gate and there are many bridges that cross the Hudson River in NY where people jump to their end. Should bridges be banned out of impulse just like the basis firearms are the bad because suicide is out of impulse?
That's a sincere question, as I'm trying to understand the logic guns are a plague to society when we are not talking about individuals and their intent/impulses, no of course not, it's easier to remove personal responsibility and speak of the collective in terms of mob rule, per your words

very large number of Americans, it isn't just the number of murders and acts of violence committed with guns.

Originally Posted by LearnMe

For many, it is also the fact that instead of going to a concert without any fears or thoughts of getting shot, now there are people actually avoiding such venues, or going anyway with a sense of having to look over their shoulder.

Ahh so you do admit it, emotion is what compells.
When logic dictates there is a 0.003% chance at being gunned down in this country I tend to believe it's not a significant threat to even consider. Then again you have to understand this individual is not compelled by emotion. Logic sure. Vegas shooting wouldn't deter me from living my life. Church shooting wouldn't deter me from living my life. Even with the local accident rates involving motorcycles I still ride my Harley without a helmet. I don't live in fear. Try it some time it's great

Originally Posted by LearnMe

There is the unease of so many people packing, when only one yahoo with a gun can turn a Sunday at church into a living and dying Hell.

Having lived in a rural area with a 911 response time average at 27 minutes, that incident would have been much worse had the guy not intervened. Unfortunately he didn't have any magazines at the ready and had to load them up. But that would make him an irresponsible gun owner not keeping a rifle at the ready and magazines at the ready. No no, they must be locked in a safe, magazines unloaded at all times. It's called being preparred. First thing that has been taught in defensive shooting classes I have attended, always be prepared you never know when you might just need it. Think of it like a condom, better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

If keeping rifle at the ready to defend property, life, fellow people is irresponsible okie dokie I'll accept it as being an irresponsible gun owner. But know this. Some loon tries to do that chit and I'm present, this isn't a blood lust, I'm acting on them. A blood last would be not acting on them to thwart them and seeing fellow people gunned down and just witness it without doing anything about it. Go ahead mock me. That's fine too, it doesn't offend me one bit, rather empowers me by a display of your ignorance.

HeHe LOL Rambo we've got a Rambo

Originally Posted by LearnMe

It's the feeling we can live less the simply civilian life and moving toward a more militaristic one in which now we need guards and security check points and even body armor as someone else suggested in this thread...

Wrong. I wasn't a fan of Bush and the Patriot act. I am not a fan of TSA. Therfore I do not travel via air. Why give financial support to a cause I do not agree with?

We don't need security. For those who want to trade liberty individual liberty for security, they shall receive neither.
Be your own guard that's your right to do so in this country. Or don't and be feeble lemmings reliant on an adult in the room with a badge to do it for you...

Originally Posted by LearnMe

To suggest the cause for all this shift toward having to live with all this crap is any sort of "fear mongering" is difficult for me to see suggested all too often by folks who just don't seem to get what the ongoing regular occurrences of mass violence really mean well beyond the statistics.

We may be short of answers or ideas on what to do about this problem, but we need not be short of understanding I don't think...

It's a simple understanding really.
Shall not be infringed.

It is your choice to live in fear. I advise you dont, but that's your life and your decision. Like I said above. I acknowledge I am at a significant risk of being mowed down by a snowbird retiree in a Cadillac while I'm on my bike. No mandatory helmet law, my life, my choice to decide if I will wear a helmet or not. Until that law is changed it is my right to do so and I will continue to do so.

There is no shortage on answers or ideas. There are plenty of good ideas to go around the first I can think of is actually enforcing current laws that are in place. Perhaps going a bit further and it be a requirement to notify local law enforcement when a NICS check comes back denied. Perhaps diligent and instant reporting to NICS.

Regular ongoing violence, again. You view it from the collective stand point you will not be able to understand. Change your thought process to that of an individual. Each case of violence is unique. From domestic violence to mass murder. Aside from the implement used, research and demand the motive. Not the implement.

Want to talk about vegas? Okay. Let's talk about vegas. That investigation is on going. And the bits and pieces that surface seem more and more like a cover up than an investigation. Again look at the former Airforce colonel Trump apointee. Why make a remark such as it is insane that civilians can have access to AR15s? Why? Easy, deflect from the airforce failure to notify NICS but focus on the implement.

Why focus on something the government goofed on? It's easier to deflect to the implement and call for banning it or finding it (subjectively) "insane" people have access to that particular weapon.

Like Waco... nooo... the government would never do anything to harm or undermine it's citizens...

Pro and big govt (usually liberals) will often argue for more protections via the government out of convenience. Here's the shocker, ATF and FBIs actions led to 76 deaths there. But that aspect isn't discussed at all... noo God no, the feds are infallible perfect and can do no wrong...

Don't get me wrong, I have no qualms with police or law enforcement whatsoever, but I do expect the same accountability for their actions or lack there of, that is expected upon fellow citizens. What, the FBI and ATF or in the Bundy ranch case, BLM, can act with impunity? That's how you get tyranny. that's how you get a militia formed one comprised of combat veterans at that...

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

But do you honestly need 40 different guns?



Can you answer why someone needs 40 without the spin about it being private property?

I don't have a problem with private property unless the property has the intent to injure if not maim. Guns are just that. A car isn't intended to do that.

"But do you honestly need 40 different guns?

You Keep MISSING (or ignoring) the point.

NEED has NOTHING to do with it.

The Martin Car Collection- Approx. 40 Fabulous Vehicles!

The Martin Car Collection Auction Official Results - September 23, 2017 | VanDerBrink Auctions

How about 9 HUNDRED?

900 cars and counting: How one man's secret collection drew international fame

900 cars and counting: How one man's secret collection drew international fame | Motor Vehicle | roanoke.com


Since we KNOW cars KILL MORE then guns every year, why do we allow people to have more then 1 car each?

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

And I have the legal right to be safe as well. That one from Vegas shouldn't have been able to buy 20 guns in 30 days, nor should the Texas shooter even owned guns.

Then don't PO the guy and everyone lives happily ever after.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

But do you honestly need 40 different guns?



Can you answer why someone needs 40 without the spin about it being private property?

I don't have a problem with private property unless the property has the intent to injure if not maim. Guns are just that. A car isn't intended to do that.

"unless the property has the intent to injure if not maim. Guns are just that"

A gun is nothing more then a object to propel another object a certain distance. PERIOD

WHAT the PERSON does with the gun IS THE important thing.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by mkpunk

The Las Vegas gun man had 40+, nobody needs that much. This is why I use that number honestly.

Please STOP. You are making yourself look sillier and sillier with every post.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by craigiri

When you live in a civilized country there are MANY things that you do which succumb to both common sense and logic.

For example - I am a HAM. I might be able to put a single tower up on my property - but if I put 20 towers up there will certainly be some grief.

Most people live in a limited space - if they buy 30 cars and park them on their lawn that would be illogical.

In other words, normal people don't do things 'because they can". They may purchase based on needs and even wants, but they understand basic common sense.

This is not to say you can't find someone somewhere who needs 100 guns. But it would seem to be that, for most citizens, stocking up like the Constitution says "like the well regulated militia" might be fine. A long rifle and a pistol...maybe two of each.

The answer seems to be in the human behavior. 97% of gun owners think one or a few is enough. Strangely....that 3% figure lines up somewhat with the number of sociopaths (3-5) and is scary when you even think of 1% psychopaths (will kill without even a thought).....

I really don't care if my neighbor has 10 guns gotten through proper channels (we have tough laws up here in MA)......but these crazies who get something stuck in their head and just go out and buy a bundle....that worries me.

"but they understand basic common sense."

Which you DON'T

"stocking up like the Constitution says "like the well regulated militia""

First, you have to know what "well regulated militia" means.

And OBVIOUSLY you DON'T.

"but these crazies who get something stuck in their head"

When you fond a way to STOP people from becoming one of "these crazies" get back to us.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by craigiri

Just so the gun nuts here don't waste their breath - let me speak for many of the people here.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it. It doesn't matter how many articles you point to. It doesn't matter how many anecdotes you come up with.

We believe that a country with 300 million guns floating around will result is VASTLY more death and suffering that one with many less. EVERY statistic bears this out - common sense does also

If I give a party and invite 500 people and have unlimited booze, coke, heroin, X, meth and the like on a big table in the middle of the room......will there be more folked up people at the end of the night than if there was just some beer and reefer?

I say yes.

"EVERY statistic bears this out "

It does NOT

"- common sense does also"

Well then you LACK common sense.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by craigiri

There is some truth to this, although many mass murderers are smart enough to carry backup.

I think we are misunderstanding each other.

The guy who has collected 100 guns over 20 years isn't generally a mass murderer. In fact, assuming these are rare, antique, difficult to obtain parts and ammo for, etc. it's a very low percentage bet.

But when 100's of millions of firearms are floating around and many states (and Fed Agencies) come up short on regulation, that means MILLIONS of guns are in the hands of the wrong people. "Moral" gun dealers have been traced to sales which end up "lost" and then show up in inner city gangs.

It's simple market economics. When there are a LOT of something....it's easy to get one and they are relatively inexpensive.

And just as with many other things - everyone profits except the dead and suffering. The gun makers, dealers, medical system, etc...all make plenty of money.

So, in a sense, guns are similar to opiates - 9 MILLION pills shipped to a small town pharmacy in WV. Legally. Take that times 1,000 and then add in the Mexican and other trade that steps in to collect some of this "free" money and them....we complain about an opiate crisis?

Yes, we have an opiate crisis? And yes we have a gun crisis....largely the same reason.

If I had a big ball of Opium (10 lbs) sitting in my basement and I ate a little bit of it every day to help my bad back, it should be no one's business. But if I sell 9 Million strong opiate pills to a tiny pharmacy in a tiny town in a state with only 1.7 million residents, the feds should be knocking the door down.

Or, if I break up my ball into packets, add fentanyl and market it as "Hendrix Black" heroin......and sell it to thousands, many of whom OD, the story changes.

If this amazing "libertarian" philosophy existed where "it's his business" then none of us would have any problems. But it doesn't. And every sane statistic points in the same direction - when you have a lot of something and lax regulation and a BIG profit motive, the thing (especially deadly things) tend to get into more hands...and the wrong hands.

"Moral" gun dealers have been traced to sales which end up "lost" and then show up in inner city gangs."

Out of the THOUSANDS of legal gun dealers, how many is that?

Drug addicts use straws to sniff cocaine, which is against the law, so should ban straws or limit how many each person can have.

This posts, like may others have NO "common sense" behind them and can be picked about easily.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by FatBob96

Private citizens owned artillery and battleships when the Bill of Rights was written.

So, you're good with me having anti aircraft artillery and a battleship then?

I mean, it does say "arms"......

"Private citizens owned artillery and battleships when the Bill of Rights was written.'

AND semi-automatic rifles which anti-gun nuts want BANNED.

Thomas Jefferson even bought a few and gave the to CIVILIANS Lewis and Clark.