We're so used to bipartisan fighting and pettyness that we've forgotten that humans with different views and beliefs can compromise. Sad
We're so used to bipartisan fighting and pettyness that we've forgotten that humans with different views and beliefs can compromise. Sad
In reply to yupididit :
Sorry, not directed to you or your wife. I was making the point that if someone already had an agreement that they are happy with- gun owners and the second amendment- and another wants to drastically alter the agreement- meeting in the "middle" is not compromise.
More specific- you can keep your AR-15 but you can't have any of the features that make desirable in the first place. That is not a compromise.
lnlogauge said:... My thoughts are of 3. For one, there are better target practice guns. 22's cost pennies compared to 223, and go bang just fine. ...
Just a quick jump back to page one for a thought. A while back I stocked up on firearms that shot .22, thinking that it was cheap, plentiful, and fairly safe. Then .22 ammo got practically impossible to find and buy for a few years (a variety of reasons and lots of conspiracy theory there). 7.62x39 and .223 was a lot easier to buy in bulk and use for target practice. One place that I really think diversity is important is firearms.
Frankly, many gun control advocates talk about compromise, but to the ears of gun owners like me, it always sounds one-sided.
We hear "Let's compromise and just ban assault weapons. You can keep your other guns."
Well..to quote Ten Bears from The Outlaw Josey Wales, "These things you say we will have, we already have."
Let's make this easier by pretending we're not talking about guns. If someone says to me "If you give me some of your cake, I won't try to take all of your cake," I don't have much of an incentive to make a deal. But if someone says "If you give me some of your cake, I'll give you some of my milk,"now I have something to consider.
So what are gun control advocates willing to give up in exchange for asking gun owners to give something up? Are you willing to trade a ban on bump stocks for removing silencers from the NFA (ie making them as easy to buy as other gun accessories)? Are you willing to trade national concealed carry reciprocity for a high-cap mag ban?
If you're not, that's okay. Many gun owners wouldn't agree to those compromises anyway. But when you ask us for something, please ask what we might want.
Chris_V said:Nick Comstock said:In reply to Chris_V :
I think your the only one saying anything about making those things legal. I certainly wouldn't be out there murdering, raping and road rage murdering just because it was legal. I don't know anyone that would except those that are already doing those things now even with them being illegal. Those are the people we are talking about. Not the majority of people in this country. But those things do happen every single day and will continue no matter the punishment.
We're talking about guns and gun control, banning vs having them legal. If banning and deterrents don't work, then why not do away with all deterrents for all laws? And what would the consequences be, since I wasn't the one that brought up that we should get rid of all laws since criminals don't follow them anyhow...
You 're basically saying we don't need any laws (gun or otherwise), since criminals don't follow them and good people don't need them. And deterrents don't work anyhow.
I know the conversation has moved on from this so forgive me for beating a dead horse but I've been thinking a lot about this today.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I believe we should have no laws. Laws are a very important mechanism for dealing with the aftermath of a violent crime if the person is actually caught. We as a society have decided we don't believe people should be murdered so we made that act illegal. The only thing it does is give us the ability to remove someone who is a murderer from society. We can say you committed this act and for that this is your punishment. People still commit murder, a lot. Every single day. The only thing the law does is give us, society, a way of dealing with people who commit these acts. So no I do not see laws as any type of deterrent to any crime only a way of dealing with the perpetrator.
As an example of that.
When I was a kid, five houses up the block from my house a woman in her late 80's was beaten to death and raped by a guy from the neighborhood. He stole her money and some prescription drugs.
There were laws against all of that. Why wasn't he deterred?
The neighbor two houses down was stabbed to death in a robbery. Why wasn't that guy deterred?
Both guy's were caught and both were sent to prison. That is what laws are for. As a way of removing people who have no morality from society.
I also completely disagree with the premise that if those laws didn't exist people in general would just go out and start killing anyone that insults them a little bit. I believe those that are inclined to do that already do. It happens every day and people continue do just that without regard to any deterrents in place.
To go along with that I asked myself why I don't break those laws.
I don't smoke weed because I don't like how it makes me feel. Not because it's illegal.
I break the speed limit because I like to drive fast. Even though it's illegal. And I likely would even if the penalty was much much stiffer than it is.
I don't rob people because it's illegal to do so but because I believe in respecting others property.
The list could go on forever but it breaks down to this. For me personally, I don't do things that I'm not inclined to do and I do things that I am inclined to do regardless of the legality.
So to bring this back to guns, generally I'm pro 2nd amendment. However I'm not opposed to limits on rounds or not having detachable magazines or even the types of guns that people are allowed to have. Hell a complete ban on them wouldn't have any effect on my personal life, except the civil war that would certainly happen.
The arguments seen on this board don't jive with the NRA or most gun owners. Most gun owners support tighter control..
All I want at this point, is some freaking studies by the CDC and other federal agencies, like we do with all other sorts of crime, disease, blight etc.. I want data.. once we have data we can know what to do... right now we're all just pissing in the wind.
Nick Comstock said:So to bring this back to guns, generally I'm pro 2nd amendment. However I'm not opposed to limits on rounds or not having detachable magazines or even the types of guns that people are allowed to have. Hell a complete ban on them wouldn't have any effect on my personal life, except the civil war that would certainly happen.
right there with you.. One day.. I would like to try hunting.. Never been and I'd also like to teach my kids safe handling etc.. like my dad taught me.. but beyond that I have no real use..My dad took me shooting exactly once as a kid with the nieghbors jc higgins single shot 22.. (who remebers pulling the cocking knob back on every shot?)... We got into black powder after that...
yupididit said:We're so used to bipartisan fighting and pettyness that we've forgotten that humans with different views and beliefs can compromise. Sad
Divisiveness is the real enemy.. Until people realize that.. the USA's place in the world will continue to be diminished. We all need to stop listening to the "real news" on facebook, twitter, our heads.. whatever.. and go talk to our neighbors.. Break bread with them...
In reply to yupididit :
We're so used to bipartisan fighting and pettyness that we've forgotten that humans with different views and beliefs can compromise. Sad
I don't think much of what you said applies to this topic. Please explain. When a group resists the confiscation of their rights and freedoms, is that failure to compromise, sad, or petty? On this topic, do you not see the compromise that has already occurred? Or was it quickly forgotten, only to demand more at the next opportunity? There are numerous restrictions to gun ownership, already enacted through compromise.
Also FYI, this is not a partisan issue, at least not to the electorate, despite what some will will lead you to believe.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
Yeah no, pass on trying to frame gun ownership as a health issue when there are hundreds of politicians frothing at the mouth to kill it with death by 1000 cuts.
I'd say I don't trust any of the polling places but I'm sure that will just end up with about 15 posts on the nature of statistics and that gets old fast.
I also don't trust anything published by a media org whose owner has his finger in damn near every anti gun group out there and sent people to out of state guns stores to commit felonies so he could sue the stores.
In reply to Will :
20 year old studies?????
https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-02-20/i-worked-cdc-and-if-it-really-wanted-it-could-study-gun-violence
Read something from this millenia.. but if we do studies and the data says we're all better off armed.. then good.... but we don't have data to tell us which way is up right now. so it's all an emotional pissing contest.
Grizz said:In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
Yeah no, pass on trying to frame gun ownership as a health issue when there are hundreds of politicians frothing at the mouth to kill it with death by 1000 cuts.
I'd say I don't trust any of the polling places but I'm sure that will just end up with about 15 posts on the nature of statistics and that gets old fast.
I also don't trust anything published by a media org whose owner has his finger in damn near every anti gun group out there and sent people to out of state guns stores to commit felonies so he could sue the stores.
this is exactly the problem.. We have an absence of data.. but you distrust the data and news sources that ther are and therefore go off of emotion. My original point stands. We need data. Still don't have enough. We cannot make these decisions in the absence of data.
Fueled by Caffeine said:In reply to Will :
20 year old studies?????
https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-02-20/i-worked-cdc-and-if-it-really-wanted-it-could-study-gun-violence
Read something from this millenia.. but if we do studies and the data says we're all better off armed.. then good.... but we don't have data to tell us which way is up right now. so it's all an emotional pissing contest.
One of my links was from 2013. One was from 2016. I've not insulted you. Please don't insult me by telling me to read something from this millennia when you didn't even read my whole post.
In reply to Will :
The FBI thing is a report.. not peer reviewed research. The 2013 is not actually a study as well. Here's a link to the research where it says... and I quote " The CDC and the CDC Foundation asked the IOM, in collaboration with the National Research Council, to convene a committee tasked with developing a potential research agenda that focuses on the causes of, possible interventions to, and strategies to minimize the burden of firearm-related violence. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence focuses on the characteristics of firearm violence, risk and protective factors, interventions and strategies, the impact of gun safety technology, and the influence of video games and other media."
So technically it was a report that said.. If we could study gun violence.. We would study these areas.
Ohh.. I read what you posted.. It wasn't accretive. :-)
Apologies if you thought I was insulting you. It was not my intent.
Fueled by Caffeine said:The arguments seen on this board don't jive with the NRA or most gun owners. Most gun owners support tighter control..
All I want at this point, is some freaking studies by the CDC and other federal agencies, like we do with all other sorts of crime, disease, blight etc.. I want data.. once we have data we can know what to do... right now we're all just pissing in the wind.
As a multiple gun owner. I want to keep my guns I also don't mind having AR's. As a multiple gun owner. I want stricter gun control.
Apparently people can only see things as someone taking instead of them willing to work out a plan. And the other side seems to only think about taking.
Us in the middle, we don't seem to be able to get through to either side.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
It's not emotional at all. We don't have an absence of data, as the fbi is very open about gun violence being on the same downtrend it has been since the 90s.
And my distrust of the news sources is pretty well founded considering most of them don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to gun laws or even the basic functions of firearms.
I believe the compromise stems from the one subject everyone can generally agree on: We need to keep guns away from crazies that would do harm.
The difficulty is in determining how to do that.
The type of guns used, magazine size, or even if a gun is used at all is less important. If someone wants to commit a mass-violent act, they'll find a way.
One comment from a couple of pages ago asked what has changed to make young kids (so far, all boys from what I can tell) do these things now versus in the past? It's not like guns haven't always been available to a lot of kids. I had easy access to my father's guns growing up and even with my rather bullied childhood never thought to enter the school and shoot everyone I felt had wronged me. Perhaps media coverage of these shootings has simply changed the landscape. Once one kid did it, this horrific action is now considered an option and it became self-perpetuating. Determining how to close this Pandora's box will be exceptionally difficult.
One other concern with assault weapons "bans" - there is a concern among gun rights activists about what sort of substitute weapons a future mass shooter might use if such a law is enacted. There is a reasonable chance that most of the assault weapons bills put forward won't save any lives, and might even make things worse. Possible results include:
The shooter uses a weapon mechanically identical to the banned weapons, but with cosmetic changes.
The result is likely to be the same death toll, and calls for further gun restrictions. We've already seen this after mass shootings in California where the perpetrators used weapons that were designed to comply with California's assault weapons "ban", and politicians there call for stricter laws.
The shooter substitutes a weapon that's considerably more lethal.
An AR-15 was originally designed for soldiers fighting at a range of several hundred yards, and uses small but accurate bullets so a soldier can carry additional equipment. There are other weapons that fire more powerful rounds, or are designed more specifically for close-in fighting- sometimes both. The death toll could conceivably be higher if a future mass shooter shows up loaded for bear (literally).
In reply to yupididit :
That was actually a great analogy about the affair
yupididit said:As a multiple gun owner. I want to keep my guns I also don't mind having AR's. As a multiple gun owner. I want stricter gun control.
Apparently people can only see things as someone taking instead of them willing to work out a plan. And the other side seems to only think about taking.
Us in the middle, we don't seem to be able to get through to either side.
You already know this, but for anyone who hasn't been through the process here, to buy one legally this is what I had to go through:
1. Take and pass a Firearm Safety test to get my certificate. There is a fee associated with this.
2. Pick out the firearm I wanted, present my certificate to prove I can purchase.
3. Complete a multi-page questionnaire about my mental, criminal and drug use history.
4. Get fingerprinted and provide a copy of my driver's license.
5. Pay for the firearm, the DROS (background check) and other fees.
6. Waiting period of 10 days.
7. Return to the store, demonstrate I know how to handle the firearm and it's safety features.
8. Sign more paperwork then the firearm gets released to me and I am responsible for transporting it safely home in accordance with the law (trigger locks, locked case etc)
Now in other states I know you can buy and take home in the same day. The background check doesn't take more than 15 minutes if I read correctly. Should they have a waiting period? What is the gun crime rate in their state and how many were committed because someone decided to go from citizen to criminal after buying a gun legally?
One thing that did strike me as odd, I can understand a waiting period to buy the first firearm to give people who may commit crimes of passion a chance to cool off, but why do established firearm owners, some with multiple firearms, have to wait 10 days for each purchase? They already have firearms so why not do the 15 minute check and let them walk out the same day? It would seem the scenario the waiting period intends to prevent would not be a factor there.
So what would you propose in terms of stricter gun control measures?
In reply to DuctTape&Bondo :
I've never had to go through that much to purchase a gun. I also never bought one while I was living in California, I spent all my money on rust free cars.
In Texas and Virginia. Background check, pay, go home with it.
In reply to yupididit :
In my case, it's been 25 years but in PA it was a 3 day wait. I don't recall anything else being required. I've had an itch to add to my collection (damn InRangeTV and their 2-gun match videos...), so I may become reacquainted with the PA process within the next few months or so. I've just been hesitant to immerse myself into another hobby I don't really have time for.
yupididit said:In reply to DuctTape&Bondo :
I've never had to go through that much to purchase a gun. I also never bought one while I was living in California, I spent all my money on rust free cars.
In Texas and Virginia. Background check, pay, go home with it.
Same process here. You can go from paying for it to walking out the door in about 30 minutes. If you already have a permit, you could trim that down to about 15 minutes.
I forgot the process for the ccp in Virginia. I didn't need a class because I was military though.
You'll need to log in to post.
