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.
I would not go there...though that is a rational thought for a serious effort to limit firearms. And particularly the hand guns as well.
I am skeptical that we will deal with the AR15 and similar except in particular states and then there is likely to be grandfathering.
As I have said I am a fan of permissive concealed carry with the present environment.
But if we ever do get to the point of developing a rational gun policy I would strongly advocate banning all semi autos from civilian use except with special licensing. And at that point we can also go after all concealed weapons. Get the US weapon count down to perhaps 15 or 20 million and all registered.
May also be able to actually develop weapons that are tied tightly to a given owner with newer technology. That might work reasonably well but you would then still need to drain the 300 million weapons out there now.
Have absolutely no belief this is likely to happen. So it is an intellectual exercise. But any thing that does not cut firearms to 10% or less of the present count is simply not going to work.
".though that is a rational thought for a serious effort to limit firearms."
Well, without playing to any stereotypes, the way I would address gangs that get off on killing each other, over dope/turf, would be to go into these areas and talk.
What is it that causes you to find the dope/gang life appealing?
Lack of job opportunities?
Let's work to get companies in to give them jobs, a legitimate living, not some 9-12 per hour Mickey Mouse crap. Won't be 1000s per week in dope money, but it would be a productive and healthier lifestyle than having to worry about whether you're getting locked up or put 6 feet under...
Angry? Why angry? Use your anger for constructive means. I've hit rock bottom once. I've struggled. I used it as motivation to never be in that position ever again.
The mentality and environment they live in has to change.
Democrats solution is lip service on how they'll improve it for votes. Yet...
I don't see anything happening in those cities for those folks other than to flood it with hand outs instead of hand ups.
Me? I'd find it insulting to turn to hand outs. I don't want your welfare section 8 food stamps EBT. I want more. I want something to look forward to. I want to be able to say See that car/truck? That's what hard work and determination gets ya.
See that house? The clothes? This that the other? That's what hard work gets ya.
I'd rather have a company industry whatever, come into my community, pay 0 taxes, in exchange for hiring me and many others, even with 0 expirience or relevant knowledge to do on the job training and have a hand up.
Rather than be insulted taking a hand out which would lead to nowhere with no opportunity.
To be honest. I would do that. I would broker a deal with the government if I were a big company.
I pay 0 in taxes by giving back and hiring people with livable wages, so that they don't have to depend on the government for survival.
Same with those who own rental properties.
I pay 0 taxes so I can provide affordable housing. With 0 property and school or at least significantly reduced, I can provide a means to live without needing high rent.
Sounds crazy? Well I would be pretty angry with the world if I didn't have any opportunity to at least have a chance to succeed. I would be pretty angry if I didn't have an opportunity to put a roof over my head. A roof I wanted.
I would be pretty angry too if my friends were gunned down by another person in our competitive drug market. Or by a police officer.
I'd be angry too if I didn't have better than what they had...
That's my offer on fixing the likes of Chicago Detroit St Louis Baltimore LA etc.
"Lack of job opportunities?"
1st most of these areas have run business's that COULD provide these jobs OUT OF THE AREA.
"Let's work to get companies in to give them jobs,"
2nd, it is damn near impossible to get a job if you don'r, at the least, have a high school diploma.
They HAVE the "opportunity" FREE SCHOOLING", right in front of them and REFUSE to take it.
As they say, "You can lead a horse to water but, you CAN'T make him drink!"
I hate to inform the Democrat/Progressives, but you have lost, and continue to lose the "more gun control" debate. The politicians know it is political suicide, and that most people don't want more useless laws that only affect the law abiding. You lost. Get over it. If you want to try to amend the Constitution, go for it. You'll lose there also.
YOU LOST.
Tell us something we don't know...
Though I have little optimism the problem of violence and/or gun violence can be curbed in American in any satisfactory way, I can't claim to be a conservative. I'm always willing to consider what new ideas and efforts that might help us with our many problems in America even though we're not likely to rid ourselves of those problems. At best we might better manage them...
I know more than a few other Democrats and/or liberals, and I don't know a one that argues for changing the constitution although that's a favorite accusation by conservatives repeated here. It isn't really that Democrats or liberals have "lost the debate."
We've all lost any hope of satisfactorily reducing gun violence in America beyond what limited affect existing gun control laws can have. What tends to "raise the cackles" of many liberals in my opinion is this ongoing "win/lose" mentality that too many folks bring to this debate, again as expressed in the above comment. Hard not to respond with equal in-your-face rhetoric, but who needs more of that, from either side?
Question or hypothetical comes to mind that I wonder how the gun enthusiasts active in this thread might answer...
Say you have a band of 100 rag tag poorly trained men who need to fend off an enemy 1,000 men strong. The enemy is well trained to use .357 Magnum Revolvers. Each of the 1,000 has a .357, no other weapon, and they're on the way to kill us 100.
You have access to 100 guns of any kind for your band of 100 to fight off this enemy of 1,000.
All other circumstances being equal (terrain, cover, conditions, size, etc.)...
Q1: Does the type of weapon you choose for your band of 100 men have any bearing on whether they win or lose this battle?
Q2: Would this band of 100 men stand any chance of victory using any type of weapon against 1,000 with revolvers?
Q3: Which weapon in the hands of your 100 men would give them the better chance of victory over the 1,000?
When Charls Whitman did his rampage in TX the death toll was 17 with 30 more seriously wounded. Bear in mind this was before the days of SWAT and "tactical response." It took 96 minutes for the police to respond and ascend the tower finally killing him. Which they would not have been able to do had citizens not taken up arms and provided them the needed covering fire.
Yes, citizens. They had access to their own weapons and fought back and without that Whitman would have continued killing with impunity. The campus was not a "gun free zone" back then. Were it not for the covering fire provided by armed citizens the killing would have gone on far longer than the eternity of 96 minutes.
An interesting piece of history that never gets brought up. Examples of how armed citizens have thwarted the efforts of killers and generally bad people abound throughout our history. Yet there I this segment that believes disarming the law abiding is the answer to criminals and mad men using firearms for nefarious purpose.
Perhaps the simple and oft touted fact that criminals by definition do NOT obey laws of any kind is to brutally common sense of a concept for some minds to understand. Rather these minds postulate that removing arms from the people who are not the problem is somehow going to trickle down to the criminal element.
Its also quite interesting how focus bounces around to different types of firearms following whatever shooting crime is top news. I've noticed also of late that any shooting crime that makes top headlines sees the reporting go to great pains to ensure that whatever type of firearm is top of the hit list is involved. I remember a report on a guy who went on a spree shooting at the cops after a botched robbery who was armed with a SW 38 revolver. The report labeled it a "semi automatic revolver."
Ban happy firearms phobics very often make complete idiots of themselves in an attempt to sound tech savvy and generally knowledgeable about firearms coming up with some of the most absolutely fanciful terminology so as to inflate a story and the sad thing is there are a lot of people who don't know any better that buy off on this nonsense.
With the current bogeyman being the AR 15 the phobics hammer on the capabilities of the rifle to hold high capacity magazines and expend ammunition at a rapid rate. They will exaggerate the abilities of the rifle almost as if it is some sort of sentient artificial intelligence. We hear this nonsense spewed about the "extreme power of the military grade ammunition" the rifle fires, hyping things up o where a light caliber rifle by mere virtue of its cosmetic features is a heavy armor defeating tank slaying body armor pulverizing weapon of mass destruction.
Then when someone actually calls their hand on this bilge they get all burr under the cinch stuttering and stammering insults and stereotypes trying to divert attention away from the fact that they have made complete blithering idiots of themselves by trying to appear otherwise. It would be a lot more amusing were it not for the fact that far to many people don't know any better and actually believe this drivel.
They also deny vehemently that they wish to completely disarm the citizenry, always saying that they don't want to outlaw "hunting and sporting" firearms. Just the evil death machines like the AR 15. (sigh) Whether the demon is Saturday night specials, assault weapons, sniper weapons and whatever battle oriented sort of label can be attached to a particular style of firearm the goal is the same. I.E. if Saturday night specials are outlawed all handguns can be added to the list before any bill is signed into law. If the AR 15 is outlawed every rifle of the same type can be listed and banned along with it.
There's that "list of defining features" thing again. They would have us believe that their interest is purely about public safety and the "do it for the children" chant is taken up. We who own and use firearms are stereotyped, demonized and told that we "have the blood of children and innocents" on our hands because we wish to hold on to our RIGHT to defend ourselves and our loved ones with force able to overcome that which threatens us.
And so, since we just can't accept that the phobics are ..just RIGHT...and we are wrong we must be forced to see and to accept. Ban this, outlaw that, pass another law that does nothing but make criminals out of the lawful. We are often expected to believe that the ones touting these solutions actually own firearms themselves or that they hunt or keep a firearm for defensive purposes. Uh huh, yea..sure. It sounds like a Klan member saying that he has Black friends.
When Charls Whitman did his rampage in TX the death toll was 17 with 30 more seriously wounded. Bear in mind this was before the days of SWAT and "tactical response." It took 96 minutes for the police to respond and ascend the tower finally killing him. Which they would not have been able to do had citizens not taken up arms and provided them the needed covering fire.
Yes, citizens. They had access to their own weapons and fought back and without that Whitman would have continued killing with impunity. The campus was not a "gun free zone" back then. Were it not for the covering fire provided by armed citizens the killing would have gone on far longer than the eternity of 96 minutes.
An interesting piece of history that never gets brought up. Examples of how armed citizens have thwarted the efforts of killers and generally bad people abound throughout our history. Yet there I this segment that believes disarming the law abiding is the answer to criminals and mad men using firearms for nefarious purpose.
Perhaps the simple and oft touted fact that criminals by definition do NOT obey laws of any kind is to brutally common sense of a concept for some minds to understand. Rather these minds postulate that removing arms from the people who are not the problem is somehow going to trickle down to the criminal element.
Its also quite interesting how focus bounces around to different types of firearms following whatever shooting crime is top news. I've noticed also of late that any shooting crime that makes top headlines sees the reporting go to great pains to ensure that whatever type of firearm is top of the hit list is involved. I remember a report on a guy who went on a spree shooting at the cops after a botched robbery who was armed with a SW 38 revolver. The report labeled it a "semi automatic revolver."
Ban happy firearms phobics very often make complete idiots of themselves in an attempt to sound tech savvy and generally knowledgeable about firearms coming up with some of the most absolutely fanciful terminology so as to inflate a story and the sad thing is there are a lot of people who don't know any better that buy off on this nonsense.
With the current bogeyman being the AR 15 the phobics hammer on the capabilities of the rifle to hold high capacity magazines and expend ammunition at a rapid rate. They will exaggerate the abilities of the rifle almost as if it is some sort of sentient artificial intelligence. We hear this nonsense spewed about the "extreme power of the military grade ammunition" the rifle fires, hyping things up o where a light caliber rifle by mere virtue of its cosmetic features is a heavy armor defeating tank slaying body armor pulverizing weapon of mass destruction.
Then when someone actually calls their hand on this bilge they get all burr under the cinch stuttering and stammering insults and stereotypes trying to divert attention away from the fact that they have made complete blithering idiots of themselves by trying to appear otherwise. It would be a lot more amusing were it not for the fact that far to many people don't know any better and actually believe this drivel.
They also deny vehemently that they wish to completely disarm the citizenry, always saying that they don't want to outlaw "hunting and sporting" firearms. Just the evil death machines like the AR 15. (sigh) Whether the demon is Saturday night specials, assault weapons, sniper weapons and whatever battle oriented sort of label can be attached to a particular style of firearm the goal is the same. I.E. if Saturday night specials are outlawed all handguns can be added to the list before any bill is signed into law. If the AR 15 is outlawed every rifle of the same type can be listed and banned along with it.
There's that "list of defining features" thing again. They would have us believe that their interest is purely about public safety and the "do it for the children" chant is taken up. We who own and use firearms are stereotyped, demonized and told that we "have the blood of children and innocents" on our hands because we wish to hold on to our RIGHT to defend ourselves and our loved ones with force able to overcome that which threatens us.
And so, since we just can't accept that the phobics are ..just RIGHT...and we are wrong we must be forced to see and to accept. Ban this, outlaw that, pass another law that does nothing but make criminals out of the lawful. We are often expected to believe that the ones touting these solutions actually own firearms themselves or that they hunt or keep a firearm for defensive purposes. Uh huh, yea..sure. It sounds like a Klan member saying that he has Black friends.
Yet another long and wordy post providing no value. Siimply another gunnie venting.
The statistics absolutely prove we take a significant hit for our gun laws. The argument should be that we get some significant value from our gun laws and very large gun population. Appears however that such an argument is hard to make.
Yet another long and wordy post providing no value. Siimply another gunnie venting.
The statistics absolutely prove we take a significant hit for our gun laws. The argument should be that we get some significant value from our gun laws and very large gun population. Appears however that such an argument is hard to make.
Using a gun illegally, and committing murder is already a crime. Guns, and magazines will always be plentiful in the U.S. Work on the PEOPLE, and gang problem. If you stay out of ghettos, and the drug trade, you are safer in America than in most other countries. Grow the Efff UP.
Using a gun illegally, and committing murder is already a crime. Guns, and magazines will always be plentiful in the U.S. Work on the PEOPLE, and gang problem. If you stay out of ghettos, and the drug trade, you are safer in America than in most other countries. Grow the Efff UP.
Post is another pointless diatribe. We have a huge gun population that supplies the bad guys. 600,000 guns are stolen every year. If there were not so many guns out there the number stolen would fall heavily making it harder for the bad guys to obtain them.
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.
Ban this, outlaw that, pass another law that does nothing but make criminals out of the lawful. We are often expected to believe that the ones touting these solutions actually own firearms themselves or that they hunt or keep a firearm for defensive purposes. Uh huh, yea..sure. It sounds like a Klan member saying that he has Black friends. 
