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.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,352 posts, read 8,578,998 times
Reputation: 16698
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68
You’re making the argument against your position. If you can’t get non law-abiding people to turn over their guns then the law-abiding will want to keep theirs. I do not want to be like Mexican citizens, completely helpless in the face of gun toting cartels. They aren’t allowed to buy guns, but obviously the other side is.
sshhh, don't tell him that. It's too much fun watching him shoot himself in the foot. Let him keep doing it.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,352 posts, read 8,578,998 times
Reputation: 16698
Quote:
Originally Posted by don1945
No, YOU need an AR-15, I don't. Anyone who thinks they need one is kidding themselves, and simply wants to own one because it is macho. Wanabee Rambos.
[/color]
I'm sure many owners of them aren't that way at all. Your stereotyping them is a great way to convince them to give them up. Keep up the good work
I know so many people who own them and aren't that way at all. Non aggressive people who don't even get parking tickets and just live their lives quietly.
But I'll play the game. I'm a wanna be rambo and you're a meek little man afraid he might hurt himself with a big bad AR15. Or maybe you're just intimidated by those who own them, including the women who own them too.
I looked it up and it’s a second amendment type law in name only. They can only have them in their homes, and the government can still limit who gets them. And three guesses who has an easier time getting them.
Why on earth would you want large criminal organizations to be the only ones besides government to have guns? I think that sounds awful. But I absolutely think gun owners in America need to stop leaving guns in their cars. That’s just stupid.
I explained my reasoning in my post below but if that was too long and incoherent I'll try to summarize.
Currently American intelligence agencies, focus on way too many random scumbags just because they have access to weapons like a gun. Their watching highschoolers, and dudes who shoot at each other essentially because it is fun to do- Exhibit A- Parts of Chicago, Baltimore and Saint Louis, their shooting people in different gangs but not because that gang was doing things like selling drugs in their territory or some stereotypical gang-related problem, but because they got into an argument of some sort online. OR their trying to prove they bang harder than the other guys (slight exaggeration likely). If guns were restricted to the point that only large criminal organizations could smuggle guns in, then the police could at least partially turn away from the crazy people and idiot criminals, and focus on the large fish like they do in other countries.
This is an aside-
The amount of murder-suicides and other mostly domestic incidents in the U.S is appalling especially when you compare it to foreign countries whose violence is normally either insane people who are mentally ill/serial killers, terrorists or minor (compared to America) gang warfare. Just in the last few years we have had incidents in Plano, Texas (9 died). Several in Katy, Texas and the surrounding area (Wealthy Son kills parents), (Mother kills family), (Boyfriend shoots three people including himself) last incident literally on the path I often walk to exercise. (Father kills entire family). Their was one in Cypress were only a little girl survived. You could go around the U.S and if you find a nice suburban area without the almost daily gang violence like (Northern Virginia) it is plagued with this domestic violence epidemic.
sshhh, don't tell him that. It's too much fun watching him shoot himself in the foot. Let him keep doing it.
I see the pun you did there.
I'm really bad at explaining my position and tend to ramble.
But my position is, simply
their will always be large criminal organizations that can do things like sneak guns into the country. I think a lot of gun grabber people like myself don't acknowledge that and I'm trying to although i'm struggling. MY point is we would be safer if only those few organizations were getting guns illegally than the current state of anyone can get a gun illegally because all you have to do is break into a gun owners car and night and voila, you get a weapon. Then their the gun runners who have access to gun shows and other places that sell guns. Then their the local idiots who rob the gun store by putting the front end of their trucks into the store window and dragging out all the goods, Twice at the same store. All of these previous incidents happened in Houston. If we get legal citizens to largely give up their right by themselves (although I'm a gun grabber I don't see it happening by force/ so I'm more trying to convince people that guns=bad than actually have the second amendment repealed as that is a slippery slope) then the gun supply will be significantly lower thus the supply to 90% of criminals who don't have the ability to smuggle weapons is significantly damaged.
People say that it works in Britain, Japan and Australia because their all islands, so i'll instead choose a country not wracked by gun violence that isn't even a first world country but limits guns.
Malaysia- has a reported murder rate of 1.92 per 100,000. Petty crime is rampant there compared to the U.S, but since the large criminal organizations are the only ones who can access any type of guns, we aren't seeing the normal third world levels of violence like say Philippines which as a murder rate of roughly 9.84. This is because Malaysia has severe inhumane punishments for gun owners while, Philippines although strict has much more liberal laws thus has 1.7 million licensed guns and 4 million guns estimated, legal and illegal in the country compared to just 90,000 for Malaysia. Malaysia had 82 gun murders out of their 500+ murders while the Philippines had 6,900 out of their nearly 10,000 murders. Guns are much deadlier than the alternative which is usually knives in most countries. Of course 400 million guns is much harder to deal with than a country that didn't have many to begin with.
My point is if only large criminal organizations had guns like Japan or like in Britain or China, you are much safer than everyone including the random trigger happy thief having weapons. I agree you can't stop all guns, and the organized criminal organizations will still manage to bring them into America, but if you think about it isn't the large criminal organizations causing the massive amount of crimes in America. Their doing their own crimes that don't affect the average American (to the extent of the smaller street gangs), if we stop the petty criminals from robbing everyone in sight like they do today, will be left with relatively safe streets, and the government would only have to focus on culling the large organizations instead of the dozens of huge gang task force that tackles idiot street criminals today. I don't delude myself that the big criminal guys won't be able to get guns, but it is much better that they have guns only that are now much harder to sneak in, and fetch a much higher price on the street than previously, I just want the crazies and idiots of the criminal world who will rob you, and lead the police on a car chase to not carry weapons while the guys who are involved with politics and run all the shady large drug movements can get the focus they deserve by the police.
We have our intelligence agencies today watching highschoolers who are "off their rockers" for fear they may shoot up the school, then we have tons of inner city people who may not even be in actual "gangs" who just rob people and get into shootouts over things like stepping on the wrong block or wearing the wrong color. While attention is diverted from the international organizations.
It isn't okay for large criminals to own firearms but It would be great if the U.S could reach a point were someone got shot and they could already draw a list of Yakuza guys who are almost 100% of the time the suspect, instead of it being possibly someone of their meds, or any random wannabe gangster or a domestic case. It is much easier to solve gun crimes when you know only a dozen or so groups in the entirety of your country has that capability. I put the Japanese article to show even when shootings do happen in countries were their supposed to be "impossible" they know who the perpetrators had to be or had a short list.
Uh huh. So you want to make sure that anyone who has a firearm is a member of a well-organized criminal organization. Nothing could possibly go wrong with a group like MS-13 becoming the American equivalent of the Yakuza, could it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare
I explained my reasoning in my post below but if that was too long and incoherent I'll try to summarize.
Currently American intelligence agencies, focus on way too many random scumbags just because they have access to weapons like a gun. Their watching highschoolers, and dudes who shoot at each other essentially because it is fun to do- Exhibit A- Parts of Chicago, Baltimore and Saint Louis, their shooting people in different gangs but not because that gang was doing things like selling drugs in their territory or some stereotypical gang-related problem, but because they got into an argument of some sort online. OR their trying to prove they bang harder than the other guys (slight exaggeration likely). If guns were restricted to the point that only large criminal organizations could smuggle guns in, then the police could at least partially turn away from the crazy people and idiot criminals, and focus on the large fish like they do in other countries.
Again, your solution is to force small gangs into an alliance with large criminal organizations in order for them to be able to continue their ways. That doesn't even touch on the fact that even if you stopped selling firearms tomorrow there would still be enough in circulation that your great grandchildren would be reading news stories about "gun violence."
Perhaps, if we want to address violence, we should address violence - and stop focusing on the means that people use to commit violence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare
This is an aside-
The amount of murder-suicides and other mostly domestic incidents in the U.S is appalling especially when you compare it to foreign countries whose violence is normally either insane people who are mentally ill/serial killers, terrorists or minor (compared to America) gang warfare. Just in the last few years we have had incidents in Plano, Texas (9 died). Several in Katy, Texas and the surrounding area (Wealthy Son kills parents), (Mother kills family), (Boyfriend shoots three people including himself) last incident literally on the path I often walk to exercise. (Father kills entire family). Their was one in Cypress were only a little girl survived. You could go around the U.S and if you find a nice suburban area without the almost daily gang violence like (Northern Virginia) it is plagued with this domestic violence epidemic.
This disgusts me, that as a society this continues to happen especially so close to home.
So domestic violence doesn't exist in other countries? It isn't even necessary to post links to prove you wrong on this, as it's such an absurd argument that absolutely no logical person could believe it.
You actually think that a good way to stop domestic violence is to remove any means of defense that a 120 lb woman has against her violent 250 lb husband? Here's a thought: Rather than focusing on the method used to commit murder-suicides, how about we deal with the problem of domestic abuse? You know, so we can actually do something about the problem rather than just encouraging someone to strangle/stab/poison their spouse instead of shooting them?
Posts like yours are the reason that "progressives" will never be able to logically convince anyone that they have any interest in actually promoting public safety. There is absolutely nothing in your plan that would stop criminals from committing crime. The only thing that you would accomplish is removing any sort of defensive weaponry from those of us (the vast majority of firearms owners) who actually understand human nature. While most humans are decent, there will always be some who are not and who will be predators on society. There is no way to change that, no matter how much we might wish to. Personally, I have no desire to see innocent people become prey.
Your entire point of view is based on wishful thinking, which is not a valid excuse for legislation. There has never been a time in our history that prohibition of any tangible item has resulted in the hoped for results. When we prohibited alcohol in the name of public safety, we made the criminals both more numerous and more dangerous. When we prohibited drugs in the name of public safety, we made the criminals both more numerous and more dangerous. And now, you want to prohibit the one thing that gives the average American the ability to protect themselves from criminals - in the name of public safety. That's a special kind of something, and it isn't brilliance.
I explained my reasoning in my post below but if that was too long and incoherent I'll try to summarize.
Currently American intelligence agencies, focus on way too many random scumbags just because they have access to weapons like a gun. Their watching highschoolers, and dudes who shoot at each other essentially because it is fun to do- Exhibit A- Parts of Chicago, Baltimore and Saint Louis, their shooting people in different gangs but not because that gang was doing things like selling drugs in their territory or some stereotypical gang-related problem, but because they got into an argument of some sort online. OR their trying to prove they bang harder than the other guys (slight exaggeration likely). If guns were restricted to the point that only large criminal organizations could smuggle guns in, then the police could at least partially turn away from the crazy people and idiot criminals, and focus on the large fish like they do in other countries.
This is an aside-
The amount of murder-suicides and other mostly domestic incidents in the U.S is appalling especially when you compare it to foreign countries whose violence is normally either insane people who are mentally ill/serial killers, terrorists or minor (compared to America) gang warfare. Just in the last few years we have had incidents in Plano, Texas (9 died). Several in Katy, Texas and the surrounding area (Wealthy Son kills parents), (Mother kills family), (Boyfriend shoots three people including himself) last incident literally on the path I often walk to exercise. (Father kills entire family). Their was one in Cypress were only a little girl survived. You could go around the U.S and if you find a nice suburban area without the almost daily gang violence like (Northern Virginia) it is plagued with this domestic violence epidemic.
This disgusts me, that as a society this continues to happen especially so close to home.
I agree with you a lot of the time, but here we diverge. Perhaps it’s our age difference or country of birth (or parents’ birth)? I see the violence as significantly less than it was when I was your age, and some of it has to do with concealed carry (which I was against at the time it became law). All my fears were not realized. The mass shootings of the Columbine type were not happening when I was younger though, but the country had plenty of guns. Clearly it is not gun availability causing it. It is the Internet that can constantly feed someone’s obsession, and the way the media goes on and on about each shooting that contributes to the copycats.
I know people from Mexico who do not agree with your theory about keeping guns only in the hands of criminal organizations. It’s the land of disappearances, mass graves, and journalists getting killed constantly. The police are in league with the criminals, and who can blame them when it’s either that or have their families killed? That’s something I do not want here.
People should have a right to defend themselves. A woman who finally screws up her courage to leave her abusive spouse should have the ability to buy a weapon to defend herself. She can’t afford armed security, but she can give herself a fighting chance. A rural family should be able to protect themselves without waiting for the police, who are half an hour away. An urban family should be able to do the same.
I think there should be some punishment for people who leave guns unattended in their cars for would-be thieves. I absolutely think someone like Cruz should have been prevented from getting a gun with his issues. I think if a place like Illinois wants to have strict gun laws, they should stop letting people off who break them. But I don’t want guns outlawed or much harder to get for ordinary citizens. I am in favor of not being allowed to buy AR-15 type guns until someone is 21. Hand guns already are limited that way, and they kill many times more people than AR-15s.
All that said, I do not want a gun or have one in my house with my kids. I just don’t think we should not have the right. Weird huh?
Uh huh. So you want to make sure that anyone who has a firearm is a member of a well-organized criminal organization. Nothing could possibly go wrong with a group like MS-13 becoming the American equivalent of the Yakuza, could it?
Again, your solution is to force small gangs into an alliance with large criminal organizations in order for them to be able to continue their ways. That doesn't even touch on the fact that even if you stopped selling firearms tomorrow there would still be enough in circulation that your great grandchildren would be reading news stories about "gun violence."
Perhaps, if we want to address violence, we should address violence - and stop focusing on the means that people use to commit violence.
So domestic violence doesn't exist in other countries? It isn't even necessary to post links to prove you wrong on this, as it's such an absurd argument that absolutely no logical person could believe it.
You actually think that a good way to stop domestic violence is to remove any means of defense that a 120 lb woman has against her violent 250 lb husband? Here's a thought: Rather than focusing on the method used to commit murder-suicides, how about we deal with the problem of domestic abuse? You know, so we can actually do something about the problem rather than just encouraging someone to strangle/stab/poison their spouse instead of shooting them?
Posts like yours are the reason that "progressives" will never be able to logically convince anyone that they have any interest in actually promoting public safety. There is absolutely nothing in your plan that would stop criminals from committing crime. The only thing that you would accomplish is removing any sort of defensive weaponry from those of us (the vast majority of firearms owners) who actually understand human nature. While most humans are decent, there will always be some who are not and who will be predators on society. There is no way to change that, no matter how much we might wish to. Personally, I have no desire to see innocent people become prey.
Your entire point of view is based on wishful thinking, which is not a valid excuse for legislation. There has never been a time in our history that prohibition of any tangible item has resulted in the hoped for results. When we prohibited alcohol in the name of public safety, we made the criminals both more numerous and more dangerous. When we prohibited drugs in the name of public safety, we made the criminals both more numerous and more dangerous. And now, you want to prohibit the one thing that gives the average American the ability to protect themselves from criminals - in the name of public safety. That's a special kind of something, and it isn't brilliance.
I think NN is a teenager. And he’s definitely not dumb. Probably just tired of all the gun violence he reads about and perhaps has experienced.
No, YOU need an AR-15, I don't. Anyone who thinks they need one is kidding themselves, and simply wants to own one because it is macho. Wanabee Rambos.
[/color]
Are you okay with say, a Ruger Ranch 14 ? Just curious.
The AR has been available to the public since the 60's , so why now the huge uproar over it ? Well actually , I do know. It's popular, both in a negative way and positive. The movies, the video games, the media have made it what it is.
Mildred Ross 89, pulled over by DPS on I-35 doing 84 in a 75.
The trooper asked for her license and insurance.
Mildred handed him a bunch of cards. As the trooper filed through them wondering why so many, he came across a conceal carry permit.
He asked Mildred if she had a weapon in the vehicle with her. She replied, "You bet I do"
Asking where it is, Mildred said, I got a 1911 .45 in the glove box.
The way she said it, the trooper asked if she had any other weapons in the vehicle. She replied, I got a Glock 23 .40 cal in the console.
Puzzled the trooper asked are there any other weapons I should be aware of? I got a S&W .38 in my waist belt.
The trooper stood back in bewilderment... asking Mrs. Ross, what are you scared of?
Mildred replied, Not a ****ing thing.
So, does Australia have a constitutional-amendment addressing firearms, similar to what the USA has???
Turn in all the guns you want Australians. The USA occasionally has gun-buybacks, it does little to nothing to
decrease the overall amount of firearms in circulation.
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.
