1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice
Hey Guest!
The donation button is here.
https://goo.gl/aFggcs
Dismiss Notice
Guest, some new updates and fixes were done. Please let staff know if anything is funky or wonky!!!

Complaining and Bitching About Guns

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by MrMD069, Feb 18, 2018.

  1. redravin

    redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

    Location:
    North
    I've read a number of posts by gun owners saying that they would be happy to sell their AR15s to be scrapped.
    If the government wanted to do a buy back like Australia did, I suspect that would work very well in terms of getting a lot of them off the street.
    Turn the damned things into statues to commemorate all the dead kids from Sandy Hook on.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Stan

    Stan Resident Dumbass Donor

    Location:
    Colorado
  3. Lindy

    Lindy Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Nebraska
    I used "panacea" because that seems to be the first and most suggested "solution" to mass shooting.

    Association is not causation. How about the preceding 20 years when their were no controls on assault weapons?

    Confusing possibly deceptive graphic. Are 1994 incidents/deaths counted in the first grouping (1984-1994) or the second (1994-2004)? How about 2004? Second group or third?

    Is the graphic designed to push an agenda? Or is it just sloppiness?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    The first and most suggested "solution" is probably universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole that has overwhelming public support but opposed by NRA.

    Of course, the graphic by itself does not prove causation, might be deceptive and designed to push an agenda. Much like everything published by the NRA.

    You probably wont like this graphic either:

    [​IMG]

    The vast majority of mass shootings(depending on definition) in the US have occurred after the the federal assault weapons ban was not renewed when it expired in 2004. Again, no direct causation, just common sense IMO to attempt to remove the most deadly weapon responsible for the majority of mass shootings as part of a comprehensive multi-disciplinary approach.

    I dont expect such a ban or even a ban on high capacity magazines. I dont even expect Congress will raise the age for buying a AR-15 (and related) to 21, the same as for buying a handgun. But again, IMO, these would all be reasonable and practical considerations as part of a broad public policy.

    As the US Supreme Court has made clear, Second Amendment rights are not absolute and reasonable restrictions are not an infringement.

    One cannot address the gun violence problem with mental health "solutions" or school safety solutions alone; reducing firearm violence also requires solutions addressing access to firearms, requirements for improving safety of firearms, far more research (still restricted) on gun violence and other issues directly related to the weapons themselves.

    BTW, it was nice to see Walmart act following on the heels of Dick's Sporting Goods.

    Walmart Statement on Firearms Policy

    In light of recent events, we’ve taken an opportunity to review our policy on firearm sales. Going forward, we are raising the age restriction for purchase of firearms and ammunition to 21 years of age. We will update our processes as quickly as possible to implement this change.

    In 2015, Walmart ended sales of modern sporting rifles, including the AR-15. We also do not sell handguns, except in Alaska where we feel we should continue to offer them to our customers. Additionally, we do not sell bump stocks, high-capacity magazines and similar accessories. We have a process to monitor our eCommerce marketplace and ensure our policies are applied.

    We take seriously our obligation to be a responsible seller of firearms and go beyond Federal law by requiring customers to pass a background check before purchasing any firearm. The law would allow the sale of a firearm if no response to a background check request has been received within three business days, but our policy prohibits the sale until an approval is given.

    We are also removing items from our website resembling assault-style rifles, including nonlethal airsoft guns and toys. Our heritage as a company has always been in serving sportsmen and hunters, and we will continue to do so in a responsible way.
    Part of the solution is also more corporate responsibility as we are starting to see.


     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Chris Noyb

    Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & don't criticize.

    Location:
    Large City, TX
    Redux, your well thought out post has at least one clear issue (IMO),
    it focuses nearly entirely on firearms,
    not the small number of people who misuse them.

    I completely disagree. No number of 'improved safeties' will make firearms 'safe/safer' from people determined to use them to shoot other people.

    ---------------------------------------

    Age requirements sound good in theory.

    If we're going down that road, why not make the age limit 25? IIRC many studies show that the human mind doesn't fully develop (an arbitrary term) until around age 25. BTW/FTR I'm simply mentioning this, I do not support this idea.

    In the USA we tell 18 year olds that they could subject to being involuntarily drafted into the military.
    And now some people want laws restricting them from purchasing firearms.
    That doesn't sound like a democracy to me.

    --------------------------------

    I've never understood the fascination that some people have with the military style assault weapons, but I'm not willing to restrict their rights to own such weapons. I speak of semi-autos; I see no reason for citizens to own fully automatic weapons even if they have to jump through many hoops to get a permit.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2018
  6. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    In this case, I am talking mostly about firearm deaths and injuries (mostly accidental) of and by children as a result of access to a gun in the home. Thousands of deaths and injuries a year that are easily preventable with better gun safety and technology applications.

    To some lesser extent, the same applies to the thousands of gun suicides ever year by minors.

    ---------------------------------------

    My issue is the double standards: 18 for long guns (including AR-15), 21 for handguns

    (b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—
    (1) any firearm or ammunition to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than eighteen years of age, and, if the firearm, or ammunition is other than a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age;
    If 21 is "reasonable" age requirement for handguns, why not for all firearms?

    --------------------------------

    I dont agree that owning "military style assault weapons" is a right. To-date, the US Supreme Court is of the same opinion, choosing not to intercede in the Maryland assault weapons ban.

    U.S. top court spurns challenge to Maryland assault weapons ban

    Again, I am not suggesting that gun control alone is the solution but simply that reasonable measures to improve gun safety and restrict gun access should be considered as part of a comprehensive multi-disciplinary approach.
     
  7. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    More on "preventable" (IMO) firearms deaths and injuries of and by children:

    KIDS AND GUNS: SHOOTINGS NOW THIRD LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH FOR U.S. CHILDREN

     
  8. Chris Noyb

    Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & don't criticize.

    Location:
    Large City, TX
    I know many gun owners. Much of this has to do with growing up with guns in the house, living in Texas, and spending a lot of time in Oklahoma. TX and OK are two states with lax (an arbitrary term with negative connotations in this context) gun laws. The guns cover a wide range, from rifles to shotguns to handguns to assault style weapons. We own a variety of firearms, excluding shotguns and assault rifles.

    Of that large group, there are very few people I consider questionable. What's interesting is the members of that small group of "questionable" gun owners are over 21 years old.

    Obviously the above is personal experience, and does not apply to all people in all situations.

    --------------------------

    We can legislate stricter gun laws, better mental health care, more school counselors, etc.

    What we can't legislate is personal responsibility.
     
  9. SirLance

    SirLance Death Therapist

    Yay for Dick's, I hope they actually do it this time. They promised the same after Sandy Hook but didn't follow through.

    We need congress to pass reform, but congress couldn't agree on the color of the sky if they had to.

    I no longer own firearms, but as a former (and probably future) gun owner, I think we need to implement universal background checks (at gun shows too), a minimum age requirement of 21, and a requirement (with appropriate funding) to maintain a reliable database that includes mental health and police contact information.

    I don't favor bans, but rather stricter (WAY stricter) regulation and control over assault weapons and high-capacity mags. I'm a trained operator and I think these would be sensible restrictions that wouldn't trample anybody's rights but would ensure such things wouldn't fall into the hands of unstable people. Like, a full-on BI and if you fuck up and your kid gets hold of it your ass goes to jail.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. POPEYE

    POPEYE Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Tulsa
    A blanket law doesn't fix anything. Guns and the wide variety of them are tools. We have to ask ourselves " what am I going to use this tool for?"
    Long range hunting, wild hogs or deer here in my area, I don't want to get close enough to a ferrel boar to knife fight while he chews my leg off. And this is a real problem here. Deer run, we are over populated.
    There are several species I need a rifle and scope for.
    Hand guns for snakes and varmits.
    I've been a gun ( not weapon ) owner since my grandpa and Dad took me hunting and fishing as a child. Wanted to teach me where food came from and how to acquire it while protecting myself from water moccasins.
    Further AR 15s and other like them are not tools for civilian use or survival. Honestly most men I know that actually hunt own 20 more or less of different guns and untold ammo.
    The discussion of shooting a man did come up and it was agreed they had to threaten mortally our family.
    Everthing has a place. Not just guns but any life taking tool needs to be kept from the mentally ill. We have talked about that as well. Not one person I know objects to a long history back ground and mental fitness exam. If it takes two weeks to get the gun or bow you want thats OKAY.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    The NRA objects to expanded (or universal) background checks and, if the NRA opposes, many Republican members of Congress will oppose for fear of losing their NRA "A" rating.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    [​IMG]

    There are now 624 events across the US and around the world where, on March 24, the kids and families of March For Our Lives will take to the streets to demand that their lives and safety become a priority, and that we end gun violence in our schools and communities.

    March for Our Lives
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    This is an interesting article in Science News about what we know and dont know about how to prevent gun violence.

    I agree that we dont know enough on what policies might work to prevent mass shootings. I also agree that we do know enough to implement policies that could deter some forms of gun violence. (see #1-7 below - gun violence among children, suicides, as a result of concealed carry/stand your ground)

    What we do and don’t know about how to prevent gun violence
    Which is why my focus has never been solely on mass shootings but on the larger issue of gun violence that is a leading cause of preventable death and injury.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. warrrreagl

    warrrreagl Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    Land of cotton.
    By chiming in, I'm not trying to solve a gun acquisition/gun control debate. I'm also not trying to beat someone over the head with my opinion until they concede. Respecting a diversity of experiences and opinions is not a competition that produces a winner, unless the goal is to be more understanding of people you don't understand, because that would be a refreshing victory for all of us in the long run. People tend to view any problem from their own reference point at the exclusion of others, and I already anticipate that what I believe infuriates other people to the core of their soul. But for what it's worth, this is my situation.

    I live way out in the country, where law enforcement is a long way away. Therefore, I can realistically only depend on myself for protection. I have many kinds of vermin to deal with out here, including both four-legged and two-legged, and I will by God protect my home and my family. And I will not do it half-assed. I am well-armed and well-stocked with ammunition, and both my wife and I know what the hell we're doing with firearms. I don't hunt, therefore I don't own a single weapon for hunting purposes. I don't buy into this total bullshit that the 2nd Amendment is for hunting purposes only. Every weapon, every single piece of ammunition I own are entirely for self-protection, not hunting. I own weapons that were designed to kill, and that's what I need them to do.

    I don't believe the 2nd Amendment gives anybody the right to own a firearm. I believe, as did Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence, that God gave me that right. No government on the planet can grant me that right, and therefore no government can take it away. It is, as Jefferson said, endowed upon me by my Creator. Therefore, I believe the 2nd Amendment takes it for granted that everyone may own any weapon they need, and that our government promises not to interfere. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say a single thing about granting anyone the right to be armed. The 2nd Amendment speaks only about not infringing on that God-given right. Unfortunately, our government has made a career out of breaking the promises outlined in the 2nd Amendment.

    In the previous paragraph, I said something about owning any weapon I need, and who gets to determine that? Many people argue that I don't "need" an assault rifle. I disagree. Only I know what it feels like to see a total stranger approaching my secluded home with a weapon in his hands. Only I know what I "need." No one living under totally different circumstances than I will ever know what I "need," and therefore should not expect to be my authority.

    Because a crazy person hundreds of miles from me killed a bunch of people, that doesn't justify eliminating my family's need for protection. I don't have a solution. I feel awful whenever these goofbags shoot and kill innocent people. But disarming me is not on the table.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  16. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    I think it was the opinion of the framers that no rights are absolute and rights identified in the Constitution, particularly the first and second amendment, are fundamental rights, not absolute rights. And it was conservative/original intent Justice Scalia who expanded on that and wrote in the Heller decision that gun rights are not absolute and it is the obligation of the state to balance those fundamental individual rights with public safety rights. He specifically noted that those individual rights may be limited with regard to "dangerous and unusual weapons’” or those firearms most applicable to military service. (I will find the exact language of his opinion that is now accepted as the standard).

    I am also of the belief that universal background checks do not infringe on anyone's rights.

    I, for one, do not want to take away or infringe on the rights of any law-abiding citizen and I think most gun control advocates are of the same opinion. There are common sense measures that, IMO, do not infringe on rights and can save lives.


    I dont have a solution either but the problem of gun violence goes far beyond mass shootings. There are far more gun deaths (and injuries) from family confrontations, gang -related violence, suicides, and accidents than mass shootings and these can be prevented or minimized with comprehensive approaches that include reasonable restrictions on firearm ownership as well as mental health issues, environmental design issues and other related issues.

    As an aside, a conservative gun control group was announced yesterday:

    Republican Donor Launches Gun Control Advocacy Group During the March For Our Lives



    Americans for Gun Safety Now

    All of the above have widespread public support and, IMO, are worth serious public discussion.
     
  17. warrrreagl

    warrrreagl Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    Land of cotton.
    Many will always disagree in perpetuity about the intent of the Founding Fathers. It will remain my opinion that my rights and liberties are eternal and sacred. I will continue to view my right to free speech equally as holy as my right to arm myself. What any legislator, court justice, or executive administrator opines has no practical value to me, because none of them are the ultimate authority on the subject.

    That being said, I believe very strongly in that higher power of authority, yet I am not a religious nut who vomits scripture at every opportunity. Other than weddings and funerals, I haven't attended a church service since I was about 14. I am a Christian who has never been baptized, and I will probably die this way, making me an embarrassment to other Christians. I speak directly to my God in the same way as the Native Americans each and every day, and I see beauty in magic in everything all around me. Even in evil. When I speak of eternal rights gifted to me by my Creator, this is to what I am referring. No piece of paper can hold those rights - they can only promise to keep their hands off. Empty promises, as it turns out. Therefore, I don't believe the Bill of Rights "grants" us anything. Rather, it acknowledges what is already guaranteed by God, and promises to stay out of it.

    I completely understand that many people in this country are totally outraged at the concept that I think of myself as being beholden to a higher authority than Washington, DC, but it is what it is. I also totally get it that they don't believe anyone has the right to own assault weapons, but I do. Although I completely see where they're coming from, I will continue to disagree. Every time one of these mass shootings takes place, my gut reaction is usually that we need to do something. But I haven't heard anything yet that will work. As soon as someone starts trying to iron out the practical details of how any solution will be implemented and enforced, it always falls apart.

    And I should have said this in my earlier post, but I do not belong to NRA, AARP, or any other political activist group that engages in lobbying and campaigning. I never join those things, because they wouldn't have me. I would be too much of a pain in the ass for not going along with the party line on everything.

    What I love more than anything in times like this is talking and engaging with others who feel and believe differently. Not to pummel them, but to learn. Being educated is infinitely more valuable than being trained.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2018
  18. redux

    redux Very Tilted Donor

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    Where do you (or should the country) draw the line with regard to owning firearms for personal use and protection? Fully automatic weapons/machine guns? Hand held rocket launchers? Flame throwers?

    Justice Scalia (from majority opinion in Heller decision):

    "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...

    ... We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. warrrreagl

    warrrreagl Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    Land of cotton.
    I don't know. As I said in my first sentence, I'm not trying to solve anything. I don't have a solution. I'm also not a lawyer, so I thankfully never think in terms of "where do we draw the line?" What a waste of time. I actually use a drip torch quite a bit out here, which is a type of mini-flamethrower. And I can't tell you how many times I wished I had an RPG whenever I find a pack of coyotes tearing apart a fawn with a distressed doe watching helplessly. I hate those bastards.

    You keep quoting Justice Scalia, as if that means something to me. It might as well be Popeye, for all I'm concerned. The way you feel about guns didn't come from someone else's researched, rehearsed arsenal of arguments. At least I hope it didn't. I hope it came from a fire in your gut, and you should be loyal to that. Talk to me on that level. I don't want to know what Scalia thinks. I want to know what you think, and what put that fire there in the first place.
     
  20. redravin

    redravin Cynical Optimist Donor

    Location:
    North
    The problem with talking about the fire in your gut for how you want to handle gun issues is that it doesn't solve anything.
    Talking about the law, as dull as that may seem, is what will help us come up with something that makes things work.
    We have to research this and get it right so that we don't make mistakes.

    We need a solution that works across all the lines.
    Digging in and refusing to reach out to both sides is just making this worse.
    There has got to be a way to make this work that doesn't involve people screaming at each other.

    Or people making pictures of the teenage kids who watched their friends being killed, to look like Hitler Youth or like they are tearing up the Constitution.
    That shit is making my blood boil.
    (Not saying anyone here is doing that).

    I grew up hunting and using a gun as a tool, like a shovel.
    I like guns and knives, they are sweet tools to me and I like owning nice tools.
    But I I am happy to take a class and have a license just like a car in order to own a gun.

    Registration, licensing, insurance, would make owning a gun just like a car.
    Owning a gun is a right true but it also has to be a responsibility.
    If you abuse your kid, your wife, you will lose your license thus your right to have a gun.
    If you have a mental breakdown your license can be temporally held until you are well again.
    If you are a parent you have to own a safe and if your kid hurts someone you're insurance will cover it.
    I would love to see the insurance companies and the gun manufactures go head to head.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1