I'm not going to take your insolence sitting down!
Guns. Good or Bad?
- Thread starter NaffNaffBobFace
- Start date
- Status
One saying that I think sums up my view on gun ownership.
The second amendment is there to protect the 1st.
I am a big supporter of the second amendment and gun ownership.
I spent 11 years in the military and I was a small arms repairman, so in the past, I have worked on a lot of weapons.
I also grew up in a house where we had a loaded gun behind almost every door. We were out in the country and sometimes we needed fast access to a weapon to get rid of coyotes or stray dogs that would hurt or kill the cattle. We learned from an early age to respect weapons and how to handle one properly. At age 12 we all went through the NRA gun safety course, even though we had been shooting for a while by that point.
Now the kicker is in my adult life I have never owned a weapon and do not currently keep one in my house. The funnier part is that we used to live farther out of town on some property. We didn't have livestock and so I never felt the need to have a weapon handy. Over the years we have moved closer to town to get our kids into a good school district. Now living in a populated area I am starting to feel the need to arm myself. People scare me far more than any wild animal. The only thing stopping me from buying a weapon is training. Not training for me but for my wife and children. I feel they need to have the same understanding of gun safety and respect for a firearm that I grew up with.
Honestly, my view on gun ownership is from the point of view of an insurgent. That is what the 2nd amendment is there for. If the need arises we can help to protect our homeland or if the government goes against the people we can affect change through force if needed.
Here are some of the things I would be ok with changing in our current laws that I don't think affect our ability to rise up when need.
1. Make it illegal for any modification that turns a weapon fully auto or makes behave in the same fashion. This will help cover next bump stock. As stated before there is no need for full auto as it's just a waste of ammo.
2. I would be ok with local gun registries. However, it would have to be made illegal to share the registry with the federal government and maybe even with the State Government. Gun confiscation is a real fear for me.
3. If a gun owner has a weapon stolen and does not report the weapon stolen in a reasonable amount of time, they should be held partially liable for whatever crime is committed with that weapon until it is reported stolen.
4. I would also be ok with required firearms training before being able to buy a weapon. This doesn't have to be a registry or anything like that. It can be as simple as having a certificate from an authorized training facility.
I don't think these would really cut down on mass shootings or gun crimes much. But maybe it would help cut down on accidental shootings and help teach people to be responsible with their firearms.
Anyway, that is my 2 cents and it got way too long. (haha that's what she said.)
The second amendment is there to protect the 1st.
I am a big supporter of the second amendment and gun ownership.
I spent 11 years in the military and I was a small arms repairman, so in the past, I have worked on a lot of weapons.
I also grew up in a house where we had a loaded gun behind almost every door. We were out in the country and sometimes we needed fast access to a weapon to get rid of coyotes or stray dogs that would hurt or kill the cattle. We learned from an early age to respect weapons and how to handle one properly. At age 12 we all went through the NRA gun safety course, even though we had been shooting for a while by that point.
Now the kicker is in my adult life I have never owned a weapon and do not currently keep one in my house. The funnier part is that we used to live farther out of town on some property. We didn't have livestock and so I never felt the need to have a weapon handy. Over the years we have moved closer to town to get our kids into a good school district. Now living in a populated area I am starting to feel the need to arm myself. People scare me far more than any wild animal. The only thing stopping me from buying a weapon is training. Not training for me but for my wife and children. I feel they need to have the same understanding of gun safety and respect for a firearm that I grew up with.
Honestly, my view on gun ownership is from the point of view of an insurgent. That is what the 2nd amendment is there for. If the need arises we can help to protect our homeland or if the government goes against the people we can affect change through force if needed.
Here are some of the things I would be ok with changing in our current laws that I don't think affect our ability to rise up when need.
1. Make it illegal for any modification that turns a weapon fully auto or makes behave in the same fashion. This will help cover next bump stock. As stated before there is no need for full auto as it's just a waste of ammo.
2. I would be ok with local gun registries. However, it would have to be made illegal to share the registry with the federal government and maybe even with the State Government. Gun confiscation is a real fear for me.
3. If a gun owner has a weapon stolen and does not report the weapon stolen in a reasonable amount of time, they should be held partially liable for whatever crime is committed with that weapon until it is reported stolen.
4. I would also be ok with required firearms training before being able to buy a weapon. This doesn't have to be a registry or anything like that. It can be as simple as having a certificate from an authorized training facility.
I don't think these would really cut down on mass shootings or gun crimes much. But maybe it would help cut down on accidental shootings and help teach people to be responsible with their firearms.
Anyway, that is my 2 cents and it got way too long. (haha that's what she said.)
Huegpaynis
Space Marshal
They can fire as fast as their mechanisms can reset, which is usually much faster than you can pull the trigger. Thus, the practical difference is that while you can probably pull a trigger pretty quickly, most people will never reach anywhere near the actual fire rates of an automatic weapon.
To give an example: From the time I played paintball, I know that I can pull a trigger up to around 13 times a second. I cannot pull a gun's trigger that fast (they're stiffer than the triggers on my old paintball gun), so I will estimate I can pull it around 8-10 times a second. Averaged, that works out to 540 rounds a minute. That seems pretty fast, but an average automatic weapon fires anywhere from 700-900 rounds a minute, or 11-15 compared to my 8-10 times a second. That might not seem like a huge difference, but then you have to account for the fact that an automatic weapon does not get tired. I cannot fire as fast as I can pull the trigger for very long; my hand will tire out and slow down. Meanwhile, the automatic will fire as long as it has ammo.
As to your question about removing automatics from circulation, I don't think that's an effective solution; nobody who owns a legal automatic (at least in America) uses them when committing a crime. You see illegal automatics used rarely, but most just use a standard semi-automatic.
*EDIT* by illegal automatic, I mean a legal semi-auto that has been illegally modified to fire in automatic, or a homemade gun that fires in automatic, which is also illegal.
Last edited:
Huegpaynis
Space Marshal
1) this is already in effect. The issue is that a bump stock does not actually interact with the firing mechanism; bump fire is still technically semi-automatic, just sped up. I can perform it without a bump stock, it's just easier with one on.
2)This is also sort of already in effect. Whenever you buy a gun, you fill out a form 4473, which is held by the shop. There are laws preventing the formation of a federal database on gun purchases, so if they want to trace your gun, they have to track down where it was sold and find the 4473 at that FFL.
3) I am perfectly ok with this in concept, but the problem of overreach is real. Do we hold anyone who's unreported stolen property of any type is used in the commission of a crime accountable?
4) this is sort of already in place in some places. For example, in California, we have to complete a firearms safety class to get our firearms safety card, which is required to buy a gun. To get a concealed carry permit, you have to take a training course. The issue is that these are not nationally comtrolled, and sometimes the tests themselves are a joke. Furthermore, requiring training can create problems if the requirement for approved training is used to create an environment where nobody is allowed to provide the training, thus barring people from being able to get firearms.
Not just training courses but mental health can be utilized as well to simply say anyone wanting to own a firearm is automatically mentally unfit to own one. People love to have their political party while its in power make laws that hamper their adversary but forget that the tables can easily be turned and said law can be used against them.
Similarly there have been recent attempts to paint all veterans as having PTSD and that all people with PTSD are irrational and violent, as a means of barring veterans from owning firearms.
you're all a bunch of troglodytes with your heads up your asses!
yeah, I'm talking to YOU!
Takeiteasy
Admiral
I truly don't have a for or against answer however I will reflect on my own personal experience on guns in the minor towns of Scotland:
When I was about 14 I saw my first real live gun in the hands of a hooded dodgy looking kid who was older than me, I knew it was real because when he pulled the trigger at his own discretion in his own desired location with us being very cautious and wary of him all I saw was a block of sandstone becoming sand. I realised at that very moment that a single bullet will pass through a human like light through water and I should leave this guy in the most neutral manner possible. So I did.
Then as I got older I bumped into erm... more serious players and when someone tells you they have a 50 calibre desert eagle with silver bullets for the soul purpose of taking lives and that it has been used three times I honestly felt a sense of death surround me, I was a trusted person by then but the fear of being in the presence and within eye shot of a tool which has taken lives made me feel sick.
I'm not a killer, I'm not a thug, I don't want this in my life, I don't like guns in any way shape or form.
I'm in Scotland so they are illegal across the board but a blanket ban doesn't stop kids getting their hands on them, it just means people can't defend against them. Then again a kid who somehow got hold of a gun is not much of a threat as they know it's a life sentence just to have it.
I have simply seen it from both sides and neither wins the fight, guns kill regardless if you are aiming or being aimed at.
My stance is neutral.
When I was about 14 I saw my first real live gun in the hands of a hooded dodgy looking kid who was older than me, I knew it was real because when he pulled the trigger at his own discretion in his own desired location with us being very cautious and wary of him all I saw was a block of sandstone becoming sand. I realised at that very moment that a single bullet will pass through a human like light through water and I should leave this guy in the most neutral manner possible. So I did.
Then as I got older I bumped into erm... more serious players and when someone tells you they have a 50 calibre desert eagle with silver bullets for the soul purpose of taking lives and that it has been used three times I honestly felt a sense of death surround me, I was a trusted person by then but the fear of being in the presence and within eye shot of a tool which has taken lives made me feel sick.
I'm not a killer, I'm not a thug, I don't want this in my life, I don't like guns in any way shape or form.
I'm in Scotland so they are illegal across the board but a blanket ban doesn't stop kids getting their hands on them, it just means people can't defend against them. Then again a kid who somehow got hold of a gun is not much of a threat as they know it's a life sentence just to have it.
I have simply seen it from both sides and neither wins the fight, guns kill regardless if you are aiming or being aimed at.
My stance is neutral.
I do not understand this and would like some clarification.
How does a kid who got a hold of a gun that carries with it a life sentence not only banishes it but also uses it to shoot a brick in front of multiple witness not a threat? Or thugs and killers who brag about taking lives with their illegal gun?
Takeiteasy
Admiral
I can only say his manner in holding it and ensuring he only used it in a way that meant no one got hurt yet showed the true potential of the weapon meant he knew the implications of wielding such a device was more than simply a case of chemistry, it was a status symbol, a way of saying "I am better and more powerful/stronger/daring than you" and I agreed so I headed the other direction to show my opposition.
This is a very touchy subject for us Americans.....
I voted guns are good, but again the question is to general to say one or the other.
I would like to make a few arguments without getting personal and starting a war here on the thread.
1) The second amendment has no bearing on today's society, the definition is to generic and far to vague by today's standards and needs to be amended, yet we always hear the first defense comments to any gun control argument is "its our right to own firearms" and one could argue both ways, one it says by trained militia, handing out AR 15s like candy to every tom, dick and harry is not a trained militia. Secondly it was to prevent the English and not to mention the trained militia in this sense is our national guard. Show me one line in our constitution that says you have the right to bear an AR 15 or any assault rifle for that matter with 100 round drum magazines, body armor, special ammunition, modifications like the ones we just saw in Las Vegas etc.... at the maximum if we choose to see it the amendment gives you the right to bear arms, its up to the government to regulate those arms and we have done so many times, in the 30s we outlawed fully auto, sawed off shotguns and grenades, in the 90s we had an assault weapons ban, I see no reason for not creating regulations when society is at risk.
2) "Self defense" I love this argument, I keep telling people if someone broke into your home and you had to rely on a firearm to save you or your family then you've most likely already lost the fight, prevention is far more powerful then reaction and a firearm is a last resort where as prevention or determent works far better, dogs, motion sensors, better locks on windows and doors, home security etc...... if people focused on this first 99.9% of the time you will never need to defend your home with a gun, that being said there is that small, very small percentage of people who will find themselves in this situation and to them I say an AR 15 is the worst home defense weapon, where as a pistol or shotgun is far more effective and accessible.
3) "I have to protect myself from the government", I love is one, as if a an AR 15 or a few rifles would prevent a modern day military like ours from taking your guns, tanks, planes, drones, chemical warfare, new technology etc.... I got news for the tough guys out there if the government wants your guns they could have taken them long ago and could easily do it in the future, to me this is a stupid argument the U.S. military would never turn on its people this argument is virtually non existent and merely a scare campaign by the NRA and right wing party to win gun control arguments.
So here we are, another mass shooting, 59 dead, almost 600 injured, ever since the shootings in Texas in the 60s, columbine in the 90s and the countless others after I don't know the exact number, something like 1700 dead? Almost 300 mass shootings in the U.S.? This is just since Sandy Hook in 2012 where 20 children were slaughtered by a 20 year old who got his mothers rifle. And here we are another dead end gun law discussion with the majority of Americans hiding behind an out dated amendment that has no bearing today the way it is written.
I am a gun owner, I believe in the right to own firearms, I also believe the government has the responsibility to regulate them when our society is being put at risk every day by irresponsible gun owners, lunatics and criminals.
My biggest issue with the gun control debate is the right wing rhetoric that the liberals and democrats want to take all your guns away, this is so far from the truth its laughable, over half the registered democrats are registered gun owners, restricting access to certain firearm types and modifications and ammunition is a far far stretch from taking peoples rights to own A firearm, again nothing in our constitution says you can own an assault weapon, whats next a tank? A rocket launcher? A F-18 Hornet? I know it sounds crazy but so does saying they want to take away all your guns, its just not true.
The assault weapon debate, I firmly stand by the statements that civilians have no use for military grade weapons,the AR 15 is just that it was created for one purpose and that was to kill people in a time of war, they modified it so they could sell it for civilian use and now we have the number one selling firearm in the U.S. the assault weapon many can be bought for under 1000.00 $ U.S. with packages including 30 round magazines and modifications included, these weapons are easy to use, easy to customize and modify and are deadly even in an amateurs hands. The Tec 9's the kids in columbine had, the 19 rd magazines used to shoot gabby gifford in Arizona, 100 round drum magazine james holmes used to kill 12 and injure 70s others, 50 dead in Orlando with another assault weapon, the list goes on and on and the same guns keep popping up, assault weapons...
SIG Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle
Tec 9
.223-caliber Bushmaster XM15-E2S
Uzi 9mm
Just to name a few used in some of the biggest mass shootings in America, I know people think were punishing responsible gun owners by banning weapons or modifications but when I hear 3 year old's shooting each other with their grandparents firearm, 9 yr old's being shot by their own father when he was simply showing them his firearm and these mass shootings some of which were committed with irresponsible owners allowing them access to firearms they should not I cant help but think there are far to many irresponsible gun owners in America, to many treat them like toys and not with the respect and responsibility they say roughly 100 children 1 - 14 years old are killed every year as a direct result of an irresponsible gun owner, 70% of which could have been prevented. 1 is to many for me, until this country gets its head out of its ass and starts acting responsibly I will support regulations, better gun laws, better technology to prevent further mass shootings and irresponsible gun owners.
Fact is after the Las Vegas shooting gun sales went up, the gun stock modification sales went up, not a single good guy with a gun could have prevented what happened in Las Vegas but stricter laws, better background checks and banning types of weapons and modifications would have 100% made it harder for this man to fire off thousands of rounds in 10 minutes into a crowd of 22,000 people, I am not implying the act would have been stopped or he would not find another way to kill people but if we can make it harder for them to do what he and others before him have done isn't it worth it? If your answer is no then I guess I fail to understand a society that turns a blind eye to what every other country in the world has seen, a country with a gun problem that their own people can't see or won't admit and that is scary.
Anyways, all I can say is I have had enough of the mass shootings, the children being killed and the rhetoric and excuses for doing nothing about it, as always its nothing personal with anyone here much love and respect. And to all the victims their families and the hero's out there I wish you all peace and a healthy recovery.
I voted guns are good, but again the question is to general to say one or the other.
I would like to make a few arguments without getting personal and starting a war here on the thread.
1) The second amendment has no bearing on today's society, the definition is to generic and far to vague by today's standards and needs to be amended, yet we always hear the first defense comments to any gun control argument is "its our right to own firearms" and one could argue both ways, one it says by trained militia, handing out AR 15s like candy to every tom, dick and harry is not a trained militia. Secondly it was to prevent the English and not to mention the trained militia in this sense is our national guard. Show me one line in our constitution that says you have the right to bear an AR 15 or any assault rifle for that matter with 100 round drum magazines, body armor, special ammunition, modifications like the ones we just saw in Las Vegas etc.... at the maximum if we choose to see it the amendment gives you the right to bear arms, its up to the government to regulate those arms and we have done so many times, in the 30s we outlawed fully auto, sawed off shotguns and grenades, in the 90s we had an assault weapons ban, I see no reason for not creating regulations when society is at risk.
2) "Self defense" I love this argument, I keep telling people if someone broke into your home and you had to rely on a firearm to save you or your family then you've most likely already lost the fight, prevention is far more powerful then reaction and a firearm is a last resort where as prevention or determent works far better, dogs, motion sensors, better locks on windows and doors, home security etc...... if people focused on this first 99.9% of the time you will never need to defend your home with a gun, that being said there is that small, very small percentage of people who will find themselves in this situation and to them I say an AR 15 is the worst home defense weapon, where as a pistol or shotgun is far more effective and accessible.
3) "I have to protect myself from the government", I love is one, as if a an AR 15 or a few rifles would prevent a modern day military like ours from taking your guns, tanks, planes, drones, chemical warfare, new technology etc.... I got news for the tough guys out there if the government wants your guns they could have taken them long ago and could easily do it in the future, to me this is a stupid argument the U.S. military would never turn on its people this argument is virtually non existent and merely a scare campaign by the NRA and right wing party to win gun control arguments.
So here we are, another mass shooting, 59 dead, almost 600 injured, ever since the shootings in Texas in the 60s, columbine in the 90s and the countless others after I don't know the exact number, something like 1700 dead? Almost 300 mass shootings in the U.S.? This is just since Sandy Hook in 2012 where 20 children were slaughtered by a 20 year old who got his mothers rifle. And here we are another dead end gun law discussion with the majority of Americans hiding behind an out dated amendment that has no bearing today the way it is written.
I am a gun owner, I believe in the right to own firearms, I also believe the government has the responsibility to regulate them when our society is being put at risk every day by irresponsible gun owners, lunatics and criminals.
My biggest issue with the gun control debate is the right wing rhetoric that the liberals and democrats want to take all your guns away, this is so far from the truth its laughable, over half the registered democrats are registered gun owners, restricting access to certain firearm types and modifications and ammunition is a far far stretch from taking peoples rights to own A firearm, again nothing in our constitution says you can own an assault weapon, whats next a tank? A rocket launcher? A F-18 Hornet? I know it sounds crazy but so does saying they want to take away all your guns, its just not true.
The assault weapon debate, I firmly stand by the statements that civilians have no use for military grade weapons,the AR 15 is just that it was created for one purpose and that was to kill people in a time of war, they modified it so they could sell it for civilian use and now we have the number one selling firearm in the U.S. the assault weapon many can be bought for under 1000.00 $ U.S. with packages including 30 round magazines and modifications included, these weapons are easy to use, easy to customize and modify and are deadly even in an amateurs hands. The Tec 9's the kids in columbine had, the 19 rd magazines used to shoot gabby gifford in Arizona, 100 round drum magazine james holmes used to kill 12 and injure 70s others, 50 dead in Orlando with another assault weapon, the list goes on and on and the same guns keep popping up, assault weapons...
SIG Sauer MCX semi-automatic rifle
Tec 9
.223-caliber Bushmaster XM15-E2S
Uzi 9mm
Just to name a few used in some of the biggest mass shootings in America, I know people think were punishing responsible gun owners by banning weapons or modifications but when I hear 3 year old's shooting each other with their grandparents firearm, 9 yr old's being shot by their own father when he was simply showing them his firearm and these mass shootings some of which were committed with irresponsible owners allowing them access to firearms they should not I cant help but think there are far to many irresponsible gun owners in America, to many treat them like toys and not with the respect and responsibility they say roughly 100 children 1 - 14 years old are killed every year as a direct result of an irresponsible gun owner, 70% of which could have been prevented. 1 is to many for me, until this country gets its head out of its ass and starts acting responsibly I will support regulations, better gun laws, better technology to prevent further mass shootings and irresponsible gun owners.
Fact is after the Las Vegas shooting gun sales went up, the gun stock modification sales went up, not a single good guy with a gun could have prevented what happened in Las Vegas but stricter laws, better background checks and banning types of weapons and modifications would have 100% made it harder for this man to fire off thousands of rounds in 10 minutes into a crowd of 22,000 people, I am not implying the act would have been stopped or he would not find another way to kill people but if we can make it harder for them to do what he and others before him have done isn't it worth it? If your answer is no then I guess I fail to understand a society that turns a blind eye to what every other country in the world has seen, a country with a gun problem that their own people can't see or won't admit and that is scary.
Anyways, all I can say is I have had enough of the mass shootings, the children being killed and the rhetoric and excuses for doing nothing about it, as always its nothing personal with anyone here much love and respect. And to all the victims their families and the hero's out there I wish you all peace and a healthy recovery.
Last edited:
Yeah, we don't have a gun problem, we have a people problem. We need to better recognize and help the mentally ill and keep them from doing things like this. Also, mass killings and murders shouldn't be publicized like they are in the media since it paints the murderer as an antihero, a feared person that gets a ton of attention and unstable people see that and it makes them want to emulate them to get the same attention.
I hear this a lot, guns don't kill people etc.. while this statement is true it does not change the fact that the weapons these people are choosing are for a specific reasons as I listed above, assault weapons with 100 round magazines, bump stocks etc.. makes it easy to commit these tragedies with a higher than usual body count. I also made several comments as to why limiting access to them is in our benefit.
Again we will always have people out there who want to commit mass murder, we can't change this but if people can't accept or understand why limiting access to these things is not essential I fear our priorities are completely out of wack that we would care more about people getting modifications and assault weapons than protecting our communities.
I got into a discussion the other day and I always hear this, the criminals will get them anyways, they don't obey laws etc... I simply replied people still drink and drive should we just get rid of that law?? I can name thousands of laws people break every day yet we still have them, simply saying criminals may get those weapons anyways is not an intelligent or realistic answer to why we don't have better gun control laws we simply are to immature to handle them as a society as we are to immature to be responsible enough to handle the firearms themselves without putting children and communities at risk.
Again we will always have people out there who want to commit mass murder, we can't change this but if people can't accept or understand why limiting access to these things is not essential I fear our priorities are completely out of wack that we would care more about people getting modifications and assault weapons than protecting our communities.
I got into a discussion the other day and I always hear this, the criminals will get them anyways, they don't obey laws etc... I simply replied people still drink and drive should we just get rid of that law?? I can name thousands of laws people break every day yet we still have them, simply saying criminals may get those weapons anyways is not an intelligent or realistic answer to why we don't have better gun control laws we simply are to immature to handle them as a society as we are to immature to be responsible enough to handle the firearms themselves without putting children and communities at risk.
Metal-Muffin
Space Marshal
There’s too much to read at 4am, so I’ll just throw my two cents in.
I have my concealed carry license. I currently live in Little Rock, which is 8th in the nation for violent crime. I am currently serving in the Army.
With all of this, I own glock 9mm, HK .45, a pink .22 (wife’s gun), an old lever action 30-30, and a shotgun. I will probably never own an AR style rifle. I don’t need one. They’re fun to shoot, but shit to hunt with. [I’d rather spend money on pixel-ships and a cockpit that will never leave the ground] I love my 30-30 because in Arkansas (in my hunting area) you can’t shoot more than 200 meters without hitting a tree, so it’s perfect. I like my shotgun because turkey and duck taste good. I originally got my 9mm for concealed carry and home defense, but haven’t taken it to the range in more than a year. The .45? I’m going to sell it.
Even though I have my CC, I don’t carry. Why? It’s a pain in the ass. I work on a base, so you can’t carry there anyway. I don’t keep it in my car, because, let’s be real- with the way people drive down here, I’d end up with murder charges. [also high vehicle breaking and theft]
Home defense? I have a 3 year old that can get into anything and a two year old who’s smarter than most of the adults I know. Anywhere I could keep a loaded weapon for easy access would just give me ulcers because I’d worry about the “what if’s”.
The second amendment is great. The right to own a weapon is a privilege that I love about this country. I even respect the people that own tons of assault style weapons because they’re fun to shoot. Do we need those kinds of weapons available to the public? Probably not. Will we ever need to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government that is trying to repress the [people]? Who knows. Is [the second amendment] really a matter of our inalienable rights as a nation?
It seems to me that the people doing the shooting- and it’s a reletivly small demographic compared to the rest of the nation [that own weapons]- would still have guns even if you were to ban them all. These people are criminals, or they’re mentally troubled, and if they want to kill a bunch of people- even with without a gun to be found in the entire nation, they’ll do it by driving trucks into crowds, or crock-pot bombs, or fly airplanes into the sides of buildings.
To me, the problem isn't our rights as a nation; it’s not who should be aloud to own what kind of gun, or how deep should a background check go. It’s not about bump stocks, high-compacity clips, “assault style” weapons and tactical accessories. It’s about our scociety and culture in the US. There seems, to me, to be a fundamental problem that goes deeper than the firearms we carry. Something is wrong with people, with us, and with the way we view and treat each other.
Something has happened, where that, the act of taking another person’s life is reduced to a 2 minute clip on the evening news- detaching all relation of feeling and consequence- detaching all empathy. I feel that by fixing us and our way of thinking- [make a paradigm shift in the relationship between taking another persons life and what that really means, and how it affects the individual as well as the people left behind-] and change the way of treating one another on a basic level, we would be taking a step in the right direction.
*Edit punctuation and small changes in brackets.
I have my concealed carry license. I currently live in Little Rock, which is 8th in the nation for violent crime. I am currently serving in the Army.
With all of this, I own glock 9mm, HK .45, a pink .22 (wife’s gun), an old lever action 30-30, and a shotgun. I will probably never own an AR style rifle. I don’t need one. They’re fun to shoot, but shit to hunt with. [I’d rather spend money on pixel-ships and a cockpit that will never leave the ground] I love my 30-30 because in Arkansas (in my hunting area) you can’t shoot more than 200 meters without hitting a tree, so it’s perfect. I like my shotgun because turkey and duck taste good. I originally got my 9mm for concealed carry and home defense, but haven’t taken it to the range in more than a year. The .45? I’m going to sell it.
Even though I have my CC, I don’t carry. Why? It’s a pain in the ass. I work on a base, so you can’t carry there anyway. I don’t keep it in my car, because, let’s be real- with the way people drive down here, I’d end up with murder charges. [also high vehicle breaking and theft]
Home defense? I have a 3 year old that can get into anything and a two year old who’s smarter than most of the adults I know. Anywhere I could keep a loaded weapon for easy access would just give me ulcers because I’d worry about the “what if’s”.
The second amendment is great. The right to own a weapon is a privilege that I love about this country. I even respect the people that own tons of assault style weapons because they’re fun to shoot. Do we need those kinds of weapons available to the public? Probably not. Will we ever need to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government that is trying to repress the [people]? Who knows. Is [the second amendment] really a matter of our inalienable rights as a nation?
It seems to me that the people doing the shooting- and it’s a reletivly small demographic compared to the rest of the nation [that own weapons]- would still have guns even if you were to ban them all. These people are criminals, or they’re mentally troubled, and if they want to kill a bunch of people- even with without a gun to be found in the entire nation, they’ll do it by driving trucks into crowds, or crock-pot bombs, or fly airplanes into the sides of buildings.
To me, the problem isn't our rights as a nation; it’s not who should be aloud to own what kind of gun, or how deep should a background check go. It’s not about bump stocks, high-compacity clips, “assault style” weapons and tactical accessories. It’s about our scociety and culture in the US. There seems, to me, to be a fundamental problem that goes deeper than the firearms we carry. Something is wrong with people, with us, and with the way we view and treat each other.
Something has happened, where that, the act of taking another person’s life is reduced to a 2 minute clip on the evening news- detaching all relation of feeling and consequence- detaching all empathy. I feel that by fixing us and our way of thinking- [make a paradigm shift in the relationship between taking another persons life and what that really means, and how it affects the individual as well as the people left behind-] and change the way of treating one another on a basic level, we would be taking a step in the right direction.
*Edit punctuation and small changes in brackets.
Last edited:
I couldn’t agree more. The good news is that for the most part this is true and its only a small fraction of a percent who are otherwise.
A local resident used his own rifle to stop Kelley from shooting more worshippers, causing Kelley to flee in his car.
Also dont forget this
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/us/new-york-shots-fired/index.html
Also dont forget this
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/us/new-york-shots-fired/index.html
Can you give a number on how many more people the killer would have killed with their gun if they had not been disarmed?
The killer could have been disarmed in multiple other ways - Guns don't disarm people, people disarm people. Number of people killed before disarmament: 26. Number killed after disarmament 0. (numbers not confirmed)
Are you suggesting a guy could have driven a truck through the wall of the church and crushed 26 to death and injured 20? Because they'd have had to have bought the roof down.
*Throws off cloak of impartiality*
The previous discussion was very civil which is excellent and I am very proud of us all, and I can't deny the conclusion that you'd have to pry guns out of American Cultures cold dead hands before it'd hand them over willingly is a given - however repeating the same arguments for every single different event of mass murder is not justifying gun ownership. If gun ownership is justified, justify it in this context, and the next context, and the next, and the next, and the next. Don't repeat what won the last discussion, win this one.
Last edited:
The issue isn't with the firearm.
The guy beat his wife and kid so severely that the Air Force opted to fast track him as a Court Martial with Dishonorable Discharge instead of letting him just ETS (the viciousness of the beating of his family had to be peculiarly egregious as the Air Force typically takes the stance of it being a civil matter.)
He was later fired as a Bible Studies 'teacher' for unspecified unacceptable behavior.
The real question is why someone like this wasn't already under observation as a threat to themselves and others.
It's a very good question, and another good question is given his history why was he allowed access to firearms?
It has been repeated time and time again "It is the few who ruin it for the rest of us."
Need I mention America banned Kinder Eggs (hollow chocolate eggs with a toy surprise inside) because there is a law that says no candy can contain embedded toys, because people could choke on them. It's a sensible law, it stops people who wouldn't be able to ascertain a Kinder Egg had a toy inside it like little children from choking on stuff and it is a law that came in in 1938 and has never been repealed - yet guns are allowed in casual ownership and accessible to people who would not otherwise be able to ascertain guns kill like little children who then shoot their siblings in the head or their mothers in the back - Mothers who then defend gun ownership rights after their children permanently damage them.
If you are allowed guns in the US, why no Kinder Eggs?
The answer (in regard to kinder eggs) is to cater to the lowest common denominator. You have to ban non-food stuff in food because idiots or those unable to know better have to be defended from themselves. When will the time come that guns are seen to be as dangerous or even more dangerous than Kinder Eggs?
Last edited:
- Status