U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-10-2019, 08:45 AM
 
10,085 posts, read 6,227,085 times
Reputation: 5693

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by leebeemi View Post
It's not BS! If you carry a gun defensively, why? What is the point of the gun? The reason it matters is because we've romanced the power a gun represents so hard, and it is having a really bad impact. It's important to really, really be honest about what guns can do so we don't raise another generation that reveres guns to the point that some of them try to use them to somehow glorify themselves.



The rhetoric has gone so deep that we cannot even acknowledge what guns do anymore. That worries me, sincerely. We are caught up in the idea that guns solve problems--that IS what groups like the NRA sell. There are narratives telling "us and them" stories, bogey men around every corner, immigrants hiding in every suburban shed--they're coming to get us, to rape our women and steal our children, to take what is OURS. Arm yourself, or suffer the consequences. Oh, and the left wants to steal ALL the guns, so you better get all you can now! THAT is the BS, well & truly.

I told you why, as have many others. That is all that needs to be said.


If you've actually done any sort of research , instead of just bleating the same thing over and over again you would see that you have brought up one of the many reasons one should not carry a firearm. You , like many others like you , have this weird connotation on the reasons for firearms. I'm not sure why, maybe it's fear, I don't know. Knowledge is key, maybe do some reading on the topic, think logically, not like an over emotional teenage.


If a person feels powerful, can't wait to use their firearm or thinks themselves now invincible due to carrying a one, they shouldn't be.
I know , I hope I go the rest of my life without every having the need to draw that firearm on anything other than a practice target.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-10-2019, 08:51 AM
 
Location: MS
4,277 posts, read 4,063,574 times
Reputation: 1484
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck View Post
Adam Lanza was just angry and resentful ?
He was one of the few that should have been in an institution and not in society.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FKD19124 View Post
and many are mentally unstable. again what has changed in the last 35 years?

Angry and resentful kids back then didnt do this.
Back then we settled it among ourselves. If two guys had issues, they would fight it out and it was settled. If they were caught doing that on school grounds, a coach would handle it. Usually by letting them finish during PE or football practice. Now there is zero tolerance policies towards fighting.



Plus kids have to learn to interact with each other unsupervised. I don't think my elementary school age nephews have spontaneous play time with neighbor kids. They have scheduled play time with a parent or sitter/nanny supervising. They are taught how to act with each other but it's not the same as experiencing it.


All of this is building up and these kids can't respond to adversity. Bullying or pressure from school or whatever. They didn't experience it at a younger age and now with testosterone pumping through their system, they blow.


This is just my opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2019, 09:00 AM
 
Location: MS
4,277 posts, read 4,063,574 times
Reputation: 1484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World View Post
People can still own guns in countries with restrictions, the only thing that has changed is some restrictions on more powerful weapons. Traditional shotguns and rifles are still available and used by farmers, gamekeepers, hunters, target shooters etc.

Australia restrictedl self-loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self-loading shotguns that have a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, semi-automatic rimfire rifles over 10 rounds, are restricted to government agencies, occupational shooters and primary producers

Restricted hand to target shooters and certain security guards whose job requires possession of a firearm.

Whilst all military grade weapons are illegal in Australia.



Australia passed new laws and just limited the power of certain weapons, and in terms of mass killings by beating and stabbing, it's a lot harder to kill a lot of people through these means when compared for a high powered device designed to kill.

As for fires, most public buildngs have sprinkler systems and I don't see a lot of children being set on fire in Australian schools.

Three charts on: Australia's declining homicide rates - The Conversation

What is their definition of a "military grade weapon"? Hunters over here will use a bolt-action .300 Win Mag chambered rifle for hunting out west. It's perfect for those long shots that require accuracy plus the power to bring down a large elk. That's also the same style rifle Chris Kyle used in the sand box to pick off Taliban. Almost every firearm ever designed was at one point part of a military.


Northern states in the US can't get compliance on registering certain guns. Very few would voluntarily give up the majority of their guns based on the British or Australian plans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2019, 09:08 AM
 
2,510 posts, read 519,452 times
Reputation: 3049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J View Post

Northern states in the US can't get compliance on registering certain guns. Very few would voluntarily give up the majority of their guns based on the British or Australian plans.
The best thing about the Brits and Aussies gun bans is it gives the anti-gunners in the USA a place to go if they don't like it here...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2019, 09:09 AM
 
10,085 posts, read 6,227,085 times
Reputation: 5693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J View Post
What is their definition of a "military grade weapon"? Hunters over here will use a bolt-action .300 Win Mag chambered rifle for hunting out west. It's perfect for those long shots that require accuracy plus the power to bring down a large elk. That's also the same style rifle Chris Kyle used in the sand box to pick off Taliban. Almost every firearm ever designed was at one point part of a military.


Northern states in the US can't get compliance on registering certain guns. Very few would voluntarily give up the majority of their guns based on the British or Australian plans.
Exactly. If the Vegas shooter had used that bolt action... we would be hearing "Sniper" rifle being used in the media, and how it could kill someone over an eighth mile away.


Who knows what will happen going forward, I'll just make sure my collection has a semi auto, bolt action and lever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2019, 09:17 AM
 
855 posts, read 139,897 times
Reputation: 481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J View Post
What is their definition of a "military grade weapon"? Hunters over here will use a bolt-action .300 Win Mag chambered rifle for hunting out west. It's perfect for those long shots that require accuracy plus the power to bring down a large elk. That's also the same style rifle Chris Kyle used in the sand box to pick off Taliban. Almost every firearm ever designed was at one point part of a military.

That is the biggest sticking point for gun bans. You can take a hunting rifle, throw some black and camo "tactical" stuff on it, and someone will call it a Assault Rifle. I do think background checks should be tightened in some areas but I still fail to understand why banning semi-automatic rifles with plastic cladding that look "Military grade" is helpful. Mental Health care is what is failing us in many aspects.

A limit on muzzle velocity and round size is the only plausible idea I have heard, but again that would hit good ole Elmer Fud rifles too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2019, 09:21 AM
 
817 posts, read 295,167 times
Reputation: 1062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adriank7 View Post
I donít get this argument. My FB friends said anyone who supports the NRA should unfriend her. Iím not a gun person but I donít think that is the root cause. (And a lot of the anti gun rhetoric coming from the left is about control not always about gun violence). I feel a lot of it is about the degradation of society. Parenting, social media. In the 80ís and 90ís and before we didnít have these issues and their were guns. Yes Columbine happened in 1999 but that wasnít the norm like it seems to be now. If someone wants to cause terror they will find a way.
These terrorists are practically all white men except for the twin towers massacre (probably because minorities get enough attention already). What they all have in common is they're enamoured with 24-7 news coverage about themselves. They're not like the Symbionese Liberation Army of the 70's which were violent but under the auspice of trying to do good. They're not like the Columbine shooters who planned their attack on April 20, 1999, to out-do the bomb killing of people in the Alfred P. Murrah Building. They're not like the terrorists who bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Building on April 19, 1995 in Oklahoma City, for revenge of the slaughter of Branch Davidians on April 19, 1993. All of those motives make sense (to them). But for the recent terrorist shooters, most are definitely not mentally ill, just severe narcissistic individuals.

So basically, although we know matches don't cause arson - and we know the NRA is not too different than the Sacklers who misled the public about opiates. The NRA simply misleads the public relative to the Second Amendment. That's no excuse for folks shooting each other unless you're a narcissist. How society fosters these individuals, is anyone's guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2019, 09:23 AM
 
Location: MS
4,277 posts, read 4,063,574 times
Reputation: 1484
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck View Post
Exactly. If the Vegas shooter had used that bolt action... we would be hearing "Sniper" rifle being used in the media, and how it could kill someone over an eighth mile away.


Who knows what will happen going forward, I'll just make sure my collection has a semi auto, bolt action and lever.
1/8 of a mile is only 220 yards.


All good collections should have those.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2019, 09:25 AM
 
Location: Marquette, Mich
1,183 posts, read 456,737 times
Reputation: 2497
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck View Post
I told you why, as have many others. That is all that needs to be said.


If you've actually done any sort of research , instead of just bleating the same thing over and over again you would see that you have brought up one of the many reasons one should not carry a firearm. You , like many others like you , have this weird connotation on the reasons for firearms. I'm not sure why, maybe it's fear, I don't know. Knowledge is key, maybe do some reading on the topic, think logically, not like an over emotional teenage.


If a person feels powerful, can't wait to use their firearm or thinks themselves now invincible due to carrying a one, they shouldn't be.
I know , I hope I go the rest of my life without every having the need to draw that firearm on anything other than a practice target.



Knowledge IS key. Honestly, why can't you even say that guns can kill? You are reacting emotionally, my friend. I don't have a "weird connotation on the reasons for firearms." The reasons are many. The purpose is singular. I'm not saying everyone who holds a gun is a murderous fanatic. I'm saying whether you have them for sport, protection, fetishization, or whatever, the gun itself, the tool, it for causing grave bodily harm. That is pure, unadulterated logic.



Yes, if a person "feels powerful, can't wait to use their firearm or thinks themselves now invincible" they should not have a gun. That's exactly what I am saying! That they are deluded into thinking the gun gives them that. That the language we use around guns allows that to happen, because the language we use is not honest. It's like "collateral damage" or "friendly fire." We use those terms so we don't feel horrible about killing/harming innocent (or allied) people.



WHY do you hope you go the rest of your life without ever having to draw that firearm on anything (I find that a curious word--do you mean "anyone"?)? I would bet it has more to do with not being in the position to cause grave bodily harm than it does with aiming at a target. That's all I'm saying. We can't seem to talk about the real issues, because they are uncomfortable. You seem so uncomfortable that you've set me as an adversary, but what you write in this post is very close to what I'm trying to say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2019, 09:30 AM
 
Location: MS
4,277 posts, read 4,063,574 times
Reputation: 1484
Quote:
Originally Posted by Middletwin View Post
...
So basically, although we know matches don't cause arson - and we know the NRA is not too different than the Sacklers who misled the public about opiates. The NRA simply misleads the public relative to the Second Amendment. That's no excuse for folks shooting each other unless you're a narcissist. How society fosters these individuals, is anyone's guess.
I actually agree with you. The NRA misleads the public relative to the 2nd by agreeing that background checks are in line with the 2nd Amendment. They are not. In fact, the NRA started misleading the public when it agreed with the National Firearms Act of 1934 and has only gotten worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top