|
|
Post by PST on Aug 6, 2019 18:47:53 GMT -5
Y'all had that before San Bernadino, and even more recently Sacramento, yes?
How'd that help in those cases?
It seems a pointless exercise if the goal is to prevent a crazy from harming others... maybe we should control the crazies?
Perhaps registration as a crazy would work?
|
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Aug 6, 2019 18:56:12 GMT -5
explain how a "law abiding" citizen has blood on his hands Law abiding gun owners provide a check on tyrannical government actions. The problem is that many mass killers are law abiding until the moment they open fire. And when that happens, it's too late to do anything. The only way to deal with that is to have stringent background checks BEFORE allowing the gun purchase. But even that has loopholes - the would-be killer can simply pay a surrogate to buy the weapon. So this is the bottom line for all of you who are against gun control: what do you propose to do about all these gun killings, which far exceed those in other first world countries? Or are you saying that we should simply live with it because there is nothing that can or should be done?I believe that gun control is an evil. But I support it because it is a necessary evil. Because the alternative is to allow these killings to continue, which I believe is a greater evil. |
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Aug 6, 2019 19:04:56 GMT -5
maybe we should control the crazies? Perhaps registration as a crazy would work? But nobody would register since nobody considers him/herself to be crazy. It's all the other people who are crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by outlier on Aug 6, 2019 20:01:01 GMT -5
Jews had no guns so the German were on their way to kill all the world if they could It was the confiscation of guns that allowed the German government to carry out these atrocities. In 1940, the allies had lots of guns. Plus 3.3M soldiers and 4K tanks. But they couldn't stop Hitler from conquering France. Civilians with guns would not have made any difference. But they did make a difference in the American Revolution. And they might well have prevented Hitler from gaining enough power to make it difficult for the allies to defeat him. |
|
|
|
Post by outlier on Aug 6, 2019 20:21:29 GMT -5
explain how a "law abiding" citizen has blood on his hands Law abiding gun owners provide a check on tyrannical government actions. The problem is that many mass killers are law abiding until the moment they open fire. And when that happens, it's too late to do anything. The only way to deal with that is to have stringent background checks BEFORE allowing the gun purchase. But even that has loopholes - the would-be killer can simply pay a surrogate to buy the weapon. So this is the bottom line for all of you who are against gun control: what do you propose to do about all these gun killings, which far exceed those in other first world countries? Or are you saying that we should simply live with it because there is nothing that can or should be done?I believe that gun control is an evil. But I support it because it is a necessary evil. Because the alternative is to allow these killings to continue, which I believe is a greater evil. No, I'm not saying simply live with it because there is nothing that can or should be done. There are many factors involved in a mass killing. Guns are not the only factor. For example, addressing metal health issues would provide an alternative direction of attacking the problem. And there are many others -- providing armed guards at schools and other vulnerable venues would also be a good place to start. And by the way, Chicago has the equivalent of the worst of the mass shootings every week. So a very good place to start on reducing gun deaths would be study Chicago and figure out how to fix that mess. I think we'll find out the the root of most of the gun deaths in this country can be traced back to political corruption. There is a cost to allowing people to own guns. There will be shooting, even mass shootings. But they are insurance against the much bigger cost of the rise of a tyrannical government. History shows that the death tolls that result from those run into the millions and destroy entire societies. Just as insurance premiums are an evil that we live with to guard against a much larger evil, gun shootings are an evil we live with to avoid the menace of tyrannical governments. |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 6, 2019 20:26:26 GMT -5
Jews had no guns so the German were on their way to kill all the world if they could It was the confiscation of guns that allowed the German government to carry out these atrocities. In 1940, the allies had lots of guns. Plus 3.3M soldiers and 4K tanks. But they couldn't stop Hitler from conquering France. Civilians with guns would not have made any difference. An armed population could have put an end to Hitler's reign of terror if they had the will to do it. Through Guerrilla warfare they could have kept his army from moving at will. Vietnam should have taught us that lesson.
How long have we fought in Afghanistan we use multi-million dollar weapons and they use obsolete AK-47s not the much newer AK-74 that the armies around the world use. They do a lot of damage with improvised explosives also.
Think how much damage Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols did using fertilizer. Germany would have been the same way if the people had the will to fight.
|
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Aug 6, 2019 20:49:14 GMT -5
No guns were involved in the Boston Marathon attack.
Tyrannical government, sure, but there's also this aspect of the very difficult issue of gun control - violent crime associated with muggings and home invasions that happen every day and result in many deaths and severe injuries.
Common criminals, thiefs, drug addicts who steal - they have no ideology. They are opportunistic - equal-opportunity predators.
Statistics show that sometimes people become victims of their own guns, but sometimes those guns are lifesavers. Some people hate guns, until they need one. Better to have it and never use it than to need it and not have it. If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night, would you regret that you didn't have a shotgun handy? The police almost never get there in time.
|
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Aug 6, 2019 21:06:00 GMT -5
explain how a "law abiding" citizen has blood on his hands Law abiding gun owners provide a check on tyrannical government actions. The problem is that many mass killers are law abiding until the moment they open fire. And when that happens, it's too late to do anything. The only way to deal with that is to have stringent background checks BEFORE allowing the gun purchase. But even that has loopholes - the would-be killer can simply pay a surrogate to buy the weapon. So this is the bottom line for all of you who are against gun control: what do you propose to do about all these gun killings, which far exceed those in other first world countries? Or are you saying that we should simply live with it because there is nothing that can or should be done?I believe that gun control is an evil. But I support it because it is a necessary evil. Because the alternative is to allow these killings to continue, which I believe is a greater evil. I oppose it because (a) you don't need a firearm to commit mass murder (Murrah Federal Building, 1st WTC attack, Tokyo Subway attack, as examples just off the top of my head; sarin was a bit difficult, but there are much easier alternatives that anyone with google, TOR, and the ability to follow instructions could implement), (b) restricting something that also has some legitimate uses (however little the judgmental may value those uses) is a lot like pre-crime (as is any procedure that does not leave room for due process), and (c) if you try to protect everybody, all you'll succeed at is taking away everyone's liberty, not just the ones that want something you propose to restrict. If someone is determined, somewhat capable, and doesn't really care whether they are killed or captured in the process, there is NO AMOUNT of stuff that could be practical to ban that would be sufficient to prevent them. Therefore, don't f with liberty just for political showmanship. Really, the only thing that would happen if there were ZERO firearms would be a SLIGHT reduction in suicides and accidents (I say slight, because there are probably more accidental drownings and suffocations than firearms accidents, and there are equally easy and less unpleasant methods of committing suicide). All the rest would happen using other means. Chicago and Baltimore and various other cities would still have lots of people killing each other and not much caring if they got the wrong person in the process. Deadly crazies would still be pretty much as deadly as before. |
|
|
|
Post by agog on Aug 6, 2019 22:20:21 GMT -5
It not about gun control , a gun has no action But nuclear weapons have not action either. So no one should be worried about North Korea or Iran having nuclear weapons. Anyone should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, they are completely harmless.  BG said a gun has no action (ability to act on it's own.) He didn't say they weren't dangerous, or as you tried to infer he said above, "harmless. Because firearms can inflict serious harm, most American firearm owners practice firearm safety. Bringing nuclear weapons into a firearm discussion is absurd. |
|
|
|
Post by agog on Aug 6, 2019 22:46:49 GMT -5
I oppose it because (a) you don't need a firearm to commit mass murder (Murrah Federal Building, 1st WTC attack, Tokyo Subway attack, as examples just off the top of my head; But the US threatens others all the time, so shouldn't the US then have its nuclear weapons taken away? Why should only countries who threaten the US not be allowed to have nuclear weapons? Didn't Trump say he would totally destroy North Korea? Sounds like good cause to take away his nuclear weapons right there. Either that, or allow everyone to have them, after all they need them to protect themselves, same reason people say they need guns. Remember, nuclear weapons don't kill people...people kill people.  You started out with a great statement. "...the U.S. threatens others all the time,..." Yes our country does threaten others all the time. Shame on us for it too. And shame on the average citizen to be oblivious of what the power elite of our country does around the world in his/her name. But then you go straight to nuclear weapons. Again, absurd. No equivalency. Remember, GOVERNMENT IS FORCE. We in the U.S. have probably the best thought out system in history to reign in the excesses that many, if not most governments have exhibited. We are certainly the most benign dominant Power I can think of in History. But we definitely are losing our freedoms. Treating the law abiding masses as felons or psychopaths to be disarmed is a big step in the direction of totalitarianism. |
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Aug 6, 2019 23:36:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by agog on Aug 7, 2019 0:13:51 GMT -5
You are hopelessly in debt because of the parasatic attidude of most US citizens That's an extraordinary statement E. "Most U.S. citizens are parasites." We do suffer with a millstone around our neck from a largely parasitic group. Several groups in fact. But this gets into ethnic discussions and the truth must be suppressed. More than suppressed, inverted. The average European stock American is productive and law abiding. Without the human remnants of the efforts of a few wealthy people to cut labor costs to the bone by importing slaves into the country, our European stock Americans, even with our guns behind the door, would have the crime rate of Switzerland. A sane healty society can only work if everyone who is able pays his share. A working health care system would be no problem..even far cheaper than today..a health care system with the goal of profit cannot work... You are wrong again E. Only a health care system with the goal of profit can work. Profit is not an expletive. People seek it in every area of life. If the only path to profit is getting as much as you can from the government redistribution of productive people's wealth, then that's how people will seek profit. Tuition free universities no problem..great education for everyone as a real investment in future of society - no problem. Our Universities are for the most part, leftist indoctrination centers where the students are told the history of the world is White men oppressing the darker races. That's what passes for "education." The classics are barely studied. The largest exception to this is in the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) areas. But these disciplines are rapidly following the "White man bad" model. Some cowardly White men hope to survive the coming onslaught by being a "Good White," that is a White person who knows the OTHER Whites are racist. Or parasites if you prefer. Osama bin Laden should have invested in NRA and US health care system..he would have gotten no problems, perhaps even promoted to adviser of Trump/Republican Party..same time following his goal to kill as many US citizen as possible..but letting them kill themselves  And the US people love it..they vote for this goal, they elect people who support this goal. Very few Americans murder other Americans. Negro Americans comprise about 13% of our population. The males make up half of that or just over 6%. Of the 6% about half are over the age of 35 years or under the age of 15 years. That leaves 3% of America's population that are Black males between 15 and 35 years of age. THAT 3% cohort commits about half of all murders/unjustified homicides in my country. The largest percentage of murder victims by far are their fellow Black males. You see E, Black lives matter. Except to Black people. Such sayings are merely a rhetorical tool to club White people into some guilt trip over something they don't do. Put simply E, most White people in America wish our Black countrymen well, while at the same time wishing to avoid their criminality by being away from their presence if at all possible. (Liberals tell themselves they just live in the better neighborhood ("for the good schools.") Yeah E, American libs are as phony as European libs. It is the Black cohort of the American population, followed by the "Hispanic" (in quotes because Hispanic is a recent term coined by the U.S. Census to denote people of Mexican and Puerto Rican descent in our country) who comprise that portion of our population that is notably criminally bent especially in the homicide category. But we can't talk about that because "facts be racist" so forget I ever mentioned it. Stay comfortable in your "Americans are trigger happy murderers" view. Sorry for my cynism..but when german news started on Saturday with the El Paso events..a few hours later Dayton..in the long run US society will be dead ..and still at the end old white makes will discuss singers like JE. "Sorry for my cynicism" BIG LAUGH E! You flatter yourself! If you were a Cynic you wouldn't be the pompous, self righteous Liberal you show yourself to be here. You'd be able to figure out what's really happening. "German news" Ha Ha Ha. You "news" is every bit as biased as ours. Liberal whores. "In the long run Eulenspiegel, we'll all be dead. And this old White male, Christian, war veteran, former sheriff's deputy, construction worker, truck driver and human being, loves to listen to Jackie Evancho, she sings real good. Why are you here? |
|
|
|
Post by agog on Aug 7, 2019 0:37:17 GMT -5
Which is more dangerous? (if you've seen this comparison before, please wait awhile before replying and don't give it away) Hey Be Of Good Cheer. You're an old time, long time Amazonian. Good soldier too. (Jackie-wise) I'll watch the video right after this post. I never did like the M-16. Good Air Force rifle imo. I much preferred the robust construction of the M-14. So the mini 14 would be my choice to be in my closet. Actually my first over-all choice is the AK-47. It's a brick. Fix it with a hammer. ALWAYS goes bang when you pull the trigger. Don't care for the copy-cat 5.45 round. Gimme 7.62X39. Eugene Stoner? Meh. John Browning? Oh yeah! Mikhail Kalashnikov? A cave man. Cave man good! EDIT: BOGC, I clicked on the pic you posted and only got a bigger pic. No video. |
|
|
|
Post by agog on Aug 7, 2019 0:43:36 GMT -5
So this is the bottom line for all of you who are against gun control: what do you propose to do about all these gun killings, which far exceed those in other first world countries? Or are you saying that we should simply live with it because there is nothing that can or should be done? Easy to answer scf. But it's very late and I've posted a bunch tonight. I'll come back to this post tomorrow night. |
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Aug 7, 2019 1:24:17 GMT -5
Which is more dangerous? (if you've seen this comparison before, please wait awhile before replying and don't give it away) Hey Be Of Good Cheer. You're an old time, long time Amazonian. Good soldier too. (Jackie-wise) I'll watch the video right after this post. I never did like the M-16. Good Air Force rifle imo. I much preferred the robust construction of the M-14. So the mini 14 would be my choice to be in my closet. Actually my first over-all choice is the AK-47. It's a brick. Fix it with a hammer. ALWAYS goes bang when you pull the trigger. Don't care for the copy-cat 5.45 round. Gimme 7.62X39. Eugene Stoner? Meh. John Browning? Oh yeah! Mikhail Kalashnikov? A cave man. Cave man good! EDIT: BOGC, I clicked on the pic you posted and only got a bigger pic. No video. Yes, I didn't link to the video because that would have been a giveaway. My point is this: scary military looking rifle is what some folks want to ban. Old fashioned wood stock rifle looks less scary, so most of the clueless banners would give it a pass. But both these rifles shoot the same ammo, have similar rates of fire, both are semi-auto ( not full auto or burst), and both have mags in the same (practical; >30 round mags aren't generally) sizes. In other words, they're pretty much identically dangerous, regardless of looks. (The Mini-14, and definitely the AK, are more reliable if you fail to keep the AR-15 or M-16 clean. That was probably the big problem when the M-16 was first introduced, to get people to understand that; but that was before my time. I have heard of people putting condoms over the muzzle to keep dirt out. But latex eventually sticks to the metal and makes a mess - I'd tried a sturdier thumb bandage, but still had that problem. Proper plastic muzzle covers are available now, that would still shoot off if necessary, but don't stick.) Me, I favor the scary looking one, with a bayonet on it. That way, if the SHTF, maybe someone will _think_ I'm crazier than they are, and will walk away rather than requiring me to choose between them or me. Besides, I know how it handles (put some wedges in so it doesn't rattle, and a storage handgrip to hold some small spare parts), and the AF may not be much for ground forces (mostly), but I do know how to take it apart and put it back together. And if I wanted to, I could get a .300 AAC Blackout upper, with stopping power closer to 7.62 but a cartridge size close enough that one can use existing .223/5.56 mags. That would be good rather than marginal for most deer, and would likely stop a bear (if perhaps not with the first shot). |
|
And the US people love it..they vote for this goal, they elect people who support this goal.