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 never said that SOME people might not actually need a gun for safety reasons. I mean, why not carry a shotgun? Open carry is allowed in NC. I know... it's more convenient to carry a concealed handgun... I get it...
I do stand by my assertion that not everyone needs to be armed to go about their daily lives, but it is legal to be armed, so I'm not here to debate that at all. I once had a concealed carry permit, I used to own some guns (I might buy one again one day for all I know) and I'm not anti-gun in the slightest.
I am anti-crazy people carrying guns, though. It's actually very funny that you are likely assuming that people in this particular conversations are "noobies" or "liberals" when some of us (probably most of us) can shoot quite well. I fail to see what being liberal has to do with it. This state is full of liberals who shoot, hunt, etc. You don't need to show me anything about owning firearms. I've been around them since I was little.
The topic, and if we cannot stay on it, I will have to close this thread, is whether or not our current system is being enforced well enough to keep people who are clearly unbalanced from having access to and/or carrying guns.
It is a good question, really. Is there anything we can do locally to prevent issues like the one raised in the OP?
I think we are legislatively doing the best we can. There are unbalanced airline pilots who plow a full airliner into mountainsides. There are drunk motorcoach drivers who kill passengers when the bus runs off the highway. It is impossible to monitor every individual as they go about their (sometimes) erratic/irresponsible behavior. But I feel the actions of a few reprehensible morons should not infringe unnecessarily on the free movement of others. You will never get 100% risk-free airline pilots, doctors, pharmacists, or gun-possessors. There is a lot of mental instability all around us. I am surprised there aren't more shooting incidents than there are around here, the way so many citizens are so concerned with their self-importance.
One incident out of hundreds of thousands of positive ones that happen every day, is cause to react? Think about that some. One incident (where nobody was harmed) .
If we applied the same logic to incidents with cars , you and I would both be walking. A few years back an individual decided to take out his hostilities by actually running over some students at a local campus. Did we have a rush to judgment about issuing DL's to citizens? Did we call the driver a "car nutter"?
Which is more common - an unlawful shooting or an effective self-defense with a gun?
I think we are legislatively doing the best we can. There are unbalanced airline pilots who plow a full airliner into mountainsides. There are drunk motorcoach drivers who kill passengers when the bus runs off the highway. It is impossible to monitor every individual as they go about their (sometimes) erratic/irresponsible behavior. But I feel the actions of a few reprehensible morons should not infringe unnecessarily on the free movement of others. You will never get 100% risk-free airline pilots, doctors, pharmacists, or gun-possessors. There is a lot of mental instability all around us. I am surprised there aren't more shooting incidents than there are around here, the way so many citizens are so concerned with their self-importance.
I largely agree with you, eloyfan. The only thing I wish would happen is that therapists who treat individuals they feel are unstable and/or possessing anger management issues would be required to report these individuals. I don't necessarily think they should be denied rights in every case. I just think they might need to be subjected to more rigorous background checks.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Which is more common - an unlawful shooting or an effective self-defense with a gun?
Unlawful shootings. With or without legally obtained weapons. I say this only because it's all we keep true records on. Even those aren't all documented.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Former military as well as former NRA member... I really do not want the masses anywhere near a firearm since the majority have no long term training or respect for the power they have in their hands. I own guns which are under lock and key but as a former Marine I earned that right unlike the general public who have no clue what it's like to take a man's life so just respect the damage that weapon can do.
I never said that SOME people might not actually need a gun for safety reasons. I mean, why not carry a shotgun? Open carry is allowed in NC. I know... it's more convenient to carry a concealed handgun... I get it...
I do stand by my assertion that not everyone needs to be armed to go about their daily lives, but it is legal to be armed, so I'm not here to debate that at all. I once had a concealed carry permit, I used to own some guns (I might buy one again one day for all I know) and I'm not anti-gun in the slightest.
I am anti-crazy people carrying guns, though. It's actually very funny that you are likely assuming that people in this particular conversations are "noobies" or "liberals" when some of us (probably most of us) can shoot quite well. I fail to see what being liberal has to do with it. This state is full of liberals who shoot, hunt, etc. You don't need to show me anything about owning firearms. I've been around them since I was little.
The topic, and if we cannot stay on it, I will have to close this thread, is whether or not our current system is being enforced well enough to keep people who are clearly unbalanced from having access to and/or carrying guns.
It is a good question, really. Is there anything we can do locally to prevent issues like the one raised in the OP?
I didn't call anyone in this thread a newbie or liberal
I also don't think everyone should be armed, but they should have the right if they please. I do think the less government intervention for law abiding citizens the better.
To answer what anyone can do about stopping crazy people from doing harm. Call the police and report them. It's not our job to sort out the bad guys from the good guys.
I didn't call anyone in this thread a newbie or liberal
I also don't think everyone should be armed, but they should have the right if they please. I do think the less government intervention for law abiding citizens the better.
To answer what anyone can do about stopping crazy people from doing harm. Call the police and report them. It's not our job to sort out the bad guys from the good guys.
Do you actually think the local police will do much of anything? They won't.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
One incident out of hundreds of thousands of positive ones that happen every day, is cause to react? Think about that some. One incident (where nobody was harmed) .
If we applied the same logic to incidents with cars , you and I would both be walking. A few years back an individual decided to take out his hostilities by actually running over some students at a local campus. Did we have a rush to judgment about issuing DL's to citizens? Did we call the driver a "car nutter"?
That's a great point. With a car, you have to prove you are capable of handling it, and if you abuse that privilege then you lose it. With a car, you are not given a licence if you have mental OR medical issues that might cause you to harm others.
As for Car Nutter: I googled "terms for aggressive drivers" and found these on the first link:
road rage aggressive driver traffic ******* aggressive drivers merge hopper redneck speeding aggressive anger bad driving cut me off fuelirium hypermiling merging parking road hog tailgater traffic cuts trafficneer
That was the first link, but to your point, we have terms for "car nutters".
As others have said, nobody here is calling to ban guns (so walking is not a good analogy), but since there is legislation on the table now to remove background checks, the discussion is relevant to the original post. Guns, IN THE HAND OF THE WRONG PEOPLE are inherently dangerous. People that want to bury their heads in the sand about that point are endangering me, and my family, and far outweigh the safe owners.
Think about this: If you want people to be more supportive of gun rights, you should be the first person in line making sure that only responsible people can own them, and that they do in fact remain responsible.
Think about this: If you want people to be more supportive of gun rights, you should be the first person in line making sure that only responsible people can own them, and that they do in fact remain responsible.
Originally Posted by Myghost View Post
Think about this: If you want people to be more supportive of gun rights, you should be the first person in line making sure that only responsible people can own them, and that they do in fact remain responsible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sal_M
Great point!
EXCELLENT Point!
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.
