My "political" question.

scsinet

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
Perhaps many [....] might have a problem trusting even so called law abiding people haveing guns. Many gun killings are accidents, children getting their parents guns, passion killings, ect. That can accure to/by law abideing people.
mmm... quite right.
I felt exactly this way, until the last four years. A buddy of mine got a gun, along with it a concealed carry permit, and to this day still carries it at all times. Around the same time, I met who is now my fiance, who comes from a very pro-gun family.
I fought the good fight, but realized that perhaps rather than regurgitating the setiments of my parents, I should study the issue and come to my own conclusion. (By saying this, I'm demonstrating that I have considered both sides of this, I am not implying that that is what anyone here has done)
I've watched the way my fiance handles weapons, and the great passion she has for the responsible use of them - a behavior she says she has been taught since she could understand English. Gun accidents were just not anything that was ever considered in her family. The idea of mishandling weapons and betraying the responsibility that handling them carries was just never a thought. I fully believe therefore that children can be taught.
I've also had lengthy discussions with my buddy about the issues, and have become exposed to the enormous numbers of people who actually have guns around... I was very surprised to find that the majority of my co-workers own handguns... people who I know would never allow themselves to perform the unspeakable things that the proponents of gun control fear - True, I can say that right up until the day it happens... but it could happen with a knife, a rifle, etc, etc.
At the same time, I've grown great passion for the desire to protect those who are important in my life, a responsibility I trust nobody else to but myself. I do not feel that the government has any right to tell me I cannot perform this enormously important task - in my mind, one of the most important responsibilities I have.
I now feel very strongly in favor of gun rights, the posession and use of handguns for self defense, and the posession of sporting weapons for self defense and recreational uses. I have no feelings either way about assault weapons because I do not feel they pose a significant social issue either way, and although I do not personally believe it is necessary to carry a concealed weapon, I respect those who wish to do so and like the idea that criminals don't know that I'm NOT carrying one.
 

scsinet

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
I will add, with respect, explain why I or anyone should trust you with a gun.


You shouldn't.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
I respect you acknowledgeing my earlier point. Now, respecting the above statement, Perhaps many against legalizeing assault weapons or whatever, even any hand gun, or all guns if thats their positions, might have a problem " trusting even so called law abiding people haveing guns ". Many gun killings are accidents, children getting their parents guns, passion killings, ect. That can accure to/by law abideing people. Who decides who is what. Maybe they see that the criminal as per say, is not the problem, that the gun is.
I will add, with respect, explain why I or anyone should trust you with a gun.

The problem is, you think that the government should carry the weight and have the responsibility to decide if the individual is responsible. And we think that the individual able to deside on his own whether or not he is responsible.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Yea, now... But think back to the days of Bonnie & Clyde, Al Capone..etc.
The drive-byes and bang robbers like the one in LA (which was like the movie HEAT) Assualt weapons are bad because we don't want criminals having more firepower than authorities. Could you imagine the caos if criminals had military weapons?
Care to take a shot at picking the two true assault weapons pictured here. One of the two doesn't really even fit the true definition but it's close enough. Just for fun also which one would you least like to get shot by?
1

2

3

4

5
 

dogstar

Active Member
Originally Posted by SCSInet
At the same time, I've grown great passion for the desire to protect those who are important in my life, a responsibility I trust nobody else to but myself. I do not feel that the government has any right to tell me I cannot perform this enormously important task - in my mind, one of the most important responsibilities I have.
I can understand that piont....
Now, I myself own a gun. Im not married now but when I was, my wife did not want the gun around. I kepted it anyway and used the simular reasons you just posted.
I dont have kids.
On the other hand, my brother does, and he used this as why he decided to sell his guns....not because of his wife, but because he did not want them in the house anymore with his kids there.
Its an intresting topic and I dont think bad of most on either side of the discussion. I understand both sides. I am like most Americans concerned with the amount of gun violence and deaths by them in the country and would like to see that reduced and would be willing to agree with a measure/law if it could cause them to be reduced myself. I quess that there needs to be a way to prove that any measure would work befor implementing it but how do you do that?
 

salty blues

Active Member
Originally Posted by NOTSONOOB
I would like somebody to show me which country doesn't have discrimination as bad as the US. That is a world wide rampant.
As far as guns are concerned. Taking guns out of the hands of honest citizens does nothing but give power to the thugs and rapists.
The problem is all of us. We humans are basically pathetic, imperfect creatures. Most all of us have discriminated unfairly at one time or another. As to guns, I own several. I don't hunt & I'm not what some might call a "gun nut". My philosophy is I'd rather have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have one.
 

dogstar

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
The problem is, you think that the government should carry the weight and have the responsibility to decide if the individual is responsible. And we think that the individual able to deside on his own whether or not he is responsible.
No, I dont know where you got that and can say that thats " My " thoughts. My thought is that " the people " ( unless your refering to them as the government ), thru electing representatives to make laws on their behalf, will carry the responsibility of the laws.
 

scsinet

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
.................

I assume you understand my point in that, right?
 

dogstar

Active Member
Originally Posted by SCSInet
I assume you understand my point in that, right?

Ok, seriously, maybe, I cant be sure. But I would think you want me to fear the gun or you with the gun. Thats pretty much waht the smilly line was indicating. Long way from trust. But you would have to explain if thats not what you ment.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
No, I dont know where you got that and can say that thats " My " thoughts. My thought is that " the people " ( unless your refering to them as the government ), thru electing representatives to make laws on their behalf, will carry the responsibility of the laws.
Well after reading all your posts that is the impression I got.
So I'm sorry I mischaracterized your statements.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Tizzo
So... I was just reading the "Obama and Oprah" thread and the issue of handguns came up, so I started thinking... I get the logic where if nobody had one there would be no need and all that. I get it and I saw it in NZ and it really does work, well if the law has been implemented all along.
It wouldn't work here except on paper, and some people are happy with that, BUT, and here's my question.
If the president, the government, the whoever, bans weapons and imposes a serious consequence, and then I get robbed at gunpoint (cause we hafta all agree that there will be some guns still out there), can't I then sue whoever made the law cause they didn't own up to their end of the bargain? I mean, if guns are illegal, and your ordered to get rid of yours, then SOMEBODY has to be responsible for making sure that all the guns are accounted for and disposed of properly right?? You can't just ask everyone to toss their protection and just "trust" that everyone will do it.
So who would be accountable?? The police? What about their guns? I just don't see this thing working all the way through. I mean we look at a gunless country and see peace, so I can see how people think it would work but it just wouldn't. Actually, the more I ponder it, even honest people would break the law to find a gun cause they know their at a disadvantage by obeying the law...
I'm so confused!!
.
I think your right it wouldn't work. And do we really see peace because of no guns? Or because of some other factor that could influence the crime rate. The fact of the matter is, as long as we have that second ammendment,
Heston, and our culture still hunts. We won't have to worry about it.
 

jimmy 4

Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
Care to take a shot at picking the two true assault weapons pictured here. One of the two doesn't really even fit the true definition but it's close enough. Just for fun also which one would you least like to get shot by?
1

2

3

4

5

I think that 4 would be the most deadly. The others look like the plastic pieces of crap that they sell at gander mountain. aka 22's with plastic crap on them. 1 looks like a 22 as well.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
Many places do because they don't have the history of slavery like we do and all the things in between. The USA is probably the worst.
What countries are you referring too exactly? Contrary to popular misconception, the USA wasn't responsible for the bulk fo the slave trade. In fact, millions of slaves were shipped from Africa before the US was even colonized. Look at statistics of slavery in the West Indies, Spain, Brazil, etc.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jimmy 4
I think that 4 would be the most deadly. The others look like the plastic pieces of crap that they sell at gander mountain. aka 22's with plastic crap on them. 1 looks like a 22 as well.
4 is the one you most wouldn't want to get shot with the most but there isn't a 22 in the group. A couple of those "pieces of crap" will set you back over a grand, one over two grand.
 

scsinet

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
Ok, seriously, maybe, I cant be sure. But I would think you want me to fear the gun or you with the gun. Thats pretty much waht the smilly line was indicating. Long way from trust. But you would have to explain if thats not what you ment.
What I mean by that is that I do not expect others to trust me with my gun any more than I would trust them with their guns - I don't hold myself to some "higher standard" than anyone else. If you (the perverbial "you") don't trust me with my gun, then I would expect you to protect yourself from me with whatever legal means you deem appropriate.
"Fear" is certainly not what I'd want any of my fellow law abiding citizens to have. I suppose I could live with the idea that a criminal wishing to commit a crime against me being afraid of my potential for response, but no, it's not my intention to make you fear me.
It's just reiterating my earlier point... trust, verify.
 

dogstar

Active Member
Originally Posted by SCSInet
"Fear" is certainly not what I'd want any of my fellow law abiding citizens to have. I suppose I could live with the idea that a criminal wishing to commit a crime against me being afraid of my potential for response, but no, it's not my intention to make you fear me.
But, correct me if Im wrong, you must also live with the idea that many " fellow law abiding citizens " will fear you also ( if they know you have a gun, but dont know/trust you ). Im not saying there anything wrong with that, if thats how you feel or willing to except that as a consequence.
Example
A mother walking down the street with her young children, sees a police officer on the corner with a gun. Most, not all perhaps, will trust the officer and not fear him. And thus allow the children to run up to him and talk to him.
Now the same mother walking with her children sees, lets say, no disrespect, " you " on the corner with a gun. She does not know you.
She should not trust you any more than anyone should trust a stranger without a gun, but, IMO there would not be the same level of fear that results from seeing the gun. Upon seeing the gun, would you not except this mother to huddle the children in her arms and/or/also shuttle them in the opposite direction from you?
This is not an effect that I would like to impose on any fellow law abideing citizens myself. But thats just me.
Please dont think that I feel those on either side have a " higher standard " mentality. Though Im sure some might.
 

reefraff

Active Member
There are places in this country where seeing someone with a gun is the accepted norm and most mothers there wouldn't think a thing about it. The anti gun hysteria the media pushes is rediculous.
Actual Causes of Death
The leading causes of death in 2000 from behavioral causes with the number and percentages of deaths were as follows:
Tobacco accounting for 435,000 deaths or 18.1% of total deaths in the US.
Poor diet and physical inactivity accounting for 365,000 deaths or 15.2% of total deaths in the US.
These are the corrected values from the often cited originally published and later corrected values of 400,000 and 16.6%.
Alcohol consumption accounting for 85,000 deaths or 3.5% of the total deaths in the US.
Microbial agents accounting for 75,000 or 3.1% of the total deaths in the US.
Toxic agents accounting for 55,000 or 2.3% of the total deaths in the US.
Motor vehicle crashes accounting for 43,000 or 1.8% of the total deaths in the US.
Incidents involving firearms accounting for 29,000 or 1.2% of the total deaths in the US.
Sexual behaviors accounting for 20,000 or 0.8% of the total deaths in the US.
Illicit use of drugs accounting for 17,000 or 0.7% of the total deaths in the US.
 

scsinet

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
Incidents involving firearms accounting for 29,000 or 1.2% of the total deaths in the US.
Reef,
Does this 1.2% constitute all firearms incidents, including police shootings, illegal use (murder, etc), as well as legally owned guns used by their rightful owners to commit crime, or accidents involving legally owned weapons?
I'd be interested to know what percentage of these 29,000 incidents are because of the last two.
Incidentally, those numbers come out to a 0.0096% chance of dying in a firearm "incident" in a given year.
 

scsinet

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dogstar
But, correct me if Im wrong, you must also live with the idea that many " fellow law abiding citizens " will fear you also ( if they know you have a gun, but dont know/trust you ). Im not saying there anything wrong with that, if thats how you feel or willing to except that as a consequence.
Yes, IF they know I have a gun, and choose to fear it. It's not my intention to advertise it. As I stated earlier, I do not personally see a need to carry one on my person.
A criminal does not need to know whether I have a gun or not; current gun laws and the fact that some people do carry them prevent that criminal from knowing that I "probably don't." In that respect, those who carry guns are protecting to some extent those who don't... even those who don't and back gun control.
Originally Posted by Dogstar

Example
A mother walking down the street with her young children, sees a police officer on the corner with a gun. Most, not all perhaps, will trust the officer and not fear him. And thus allow the children to run up to him and talk to him.
Now the same mother walking with her children sees, lets say, no disrespect, " you " on the corner with a gun. She does not know you.
She should not trust you any more than anyone should trust a stranger without a gun, but, IMO there would not be the same level of fear that results from seeing the gun. Upon seeing the gun, would you not except this mother to huddle the children in her arms and/or/also shuttle them in the opposite direction from you?
This is not an effect that I would like to impose on any fellow law abideing citizens myself. But thats just me.
What you are talking about here is "open carry" which is illegal in the state I live in. I've never been to an area where open carry is legal, but from what I understand, believe it or not, it goes just like you say... a mother (accustomed to the area) might see "me" on the corner carrying a gun, and not give it a second thought.
Again though, whether I lived in an area like that or not, I wouldn't want to open carry. I certainly don't want people to be that intimidated by me; that's just not my nature. Hell, I don't even carry concealed.
 
Top