Printable View
I don't know the answer to all this, that's a few pay grades above me. I do know that gun salesmen are reaping the benefits of this paranoia emerging from both sides. I went in to try and buy another lower so I could build myself another AR, and the price of parts, ammo, magazines, target rounds, and the restroom key had tripled. Those chupacabra"s are laughing all the way to the banco de milliones'.
There are many things I see absolutely no reason for people to own too. I mentioned some of them in an earlier post above, yet because they are legal to own I wouldn't interfere with a law abiding citizens right to own them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bones42
The simple fact that you deny over and over and over is these are the acts of CRIMINALS or the MENTALLY ILL. Not the average everyday citizen gun owner. The problem is NOT the gun but the person choosing to use it in these horrific manners. I hope there is a day when we can identify those with these homicidal leanings and get them the help they need, or isolate them from society before they perpetrate these horrible crimes. But for now, in cases like this, where he was known to have issues, we need easier access to mental health care. Perhaps if he had gotten help this never would have happened...unfortunately like every other hypothetical situation we will never know. But I do know this, this country is great at hand wringing and knee jerk reactions and absolutely p i s s poor at looking at realistic workable answers to predictable situations.
I have never heard anyone suggesting banning cars when a drunk driver kills an entire family by crashing into them. I have never seen anyone suggesting banning cars or stopping people over the age of 65 from driving when an elderly person blasts into a building or runs down a crowd of people. WHY? Obviously the person holds no personal responsibility for the incident and it is entirely the cars fault. RIGHT? So we must ban cars, or at least much more heavily restrict who can own and operate them.
Frankly, if YOU don't want to own a semi-sutomatic rifle or pistol more power to you. I do and I will and I don't see anything changing that anytime, ever.
We're not discussing the usage of these weapons by individuals who use them for those purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by RFDACM02
I have no problem with anyone owning either type of weapon. I'm advocating limiting magazine size and doing 100% background checks.Quote:
Originally Posted by FyredUp
Um, in reality, YES we are. You want to restrict my rights to own certain firearms. I may infact use those firearms to protect myself, my loved ones, or even innocent bystanders. So it really isn't any different, unless you are saying that in our society only certain classes of people have the right to protect themselves against assault.Quote:
Originally Posted by scfire86
That assumes that is your only choice. It is not. I've only advocated for limiting magazine capacity. According to the anti-gun control posters, changing magazines is no big deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by FyredUp
Also, while there are claims that semi-auto weapons shouldn't be regulated because the majority of people use them responsibly. And that why aren't other things that kill people being given the same scrutiny. I could make the same case for things that are very highly regulated even though the majority of folks who use them are incredibly responsible.
Explosives being a prime example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scfire86
An interesting point of comparison as it is useful to see what other countries have done. In Canada the AR15 is considered a restricted weapon...you can still purchase with a criminal background check etc but face significant restrictions in terms of storage, use, and transportation. Maximum magazine capacity for all centre fire firearms in Canada is I believe only 5 rounds.
You love to dance away from the topic to the ridiculous. That is and always has been your M.O. Try carrying on a serious discussion on topic just one time. Although I don't believe you can.Quote:
Originally Posted by scfire86
Frankly, by your standards alcohol, candy, potato chips and more would be banned or heavily regulated because they kill thousands every year, And YES, that is exactly how ridiculous your defense of gun control actions are.
What topic did I dance away from?Quote:
Originally Posted by FyredUp
I would submit there are far more regulations on all those products than there are on guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by FyredUp
Other countries allow gun ownership and they don't seem to have the problem of frequent mass shootings. I believe it is time to review what is done in those countries and adopt what works.Quote:
Originally Posted by braidjansen
It is interesting to compare gun control regimes in other countries and compare them to the US but it is also an exercise of limited usefulness. The US is simply unique when it comes to attitudes towards guns. I will use the Canadian example as it is what I know best.Quote:
Originally Posted by scfire86
1) You have the right to bear arms...we do not. This fact alone makes you unique and makes gun control not just a political issue (which is what it is in most countries), but also an issue of fundamental basic rights. Canadians do not have the right to bear arms and we never have. We did not gain our independence through a violent revolution and we do not tend to believe that we need firearms to protect ourselves from a corrupt government.
2) Canadians do not, as a rule, like guns. Most Canadians believe that the types of weapons used last Friday should only be possessed by law enforcement and the military. The vast majority of firearms in this country are manual action hunting rifles and shotguns. The private ownership of military grade assault weapons and hand guns is simply outside the realm of what is considered normal.
3) Because of these two factors, very few people owned assault rifles and handguns in the early 1990's when, in response to a gun massacre in Montreal (google search "Marc Lepine" for the details), the federal government significantly restricted private ownership of every type of firearm other than the above mentioned hunting rifles and shotguns. With so few people effected it was a fairly easy thing to do. Latest figures out of the US would seem to indicate that there are 89 privately owned firearms for every 100 Americans, many of them assault weapons and handguns. So the opportunity to bring in the kind of sweeping restrictions that we saw here has already past in the US.
So in many ways the example provided by foreign countries when it comes to gun control of of limited or no value in the American debate. A made in US policy is required and, given the complexities and tone revealed in this thread thus far I don't envy you the task.
They don't have a problem or we dont' hear about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by scfire86
China has gun control and is dealing with a trend of school stabbings. We don't hear about that, though...
A pump action shotgun or rifle can be cycled and shot almost as quickly (some good shooters seem to be faster, btw) as a semi-auto and is much more reliable. With that logic, there would be no need for anyone to own a pump. Bolt actions aren't much slower, so there's no need to own a bolt action. To extend that logic further, a double action revolver can be shot about as quick as a semi-auto DAO, so there's no need for a revolver. Pretty soon, there's no need for anyone to own any firearm....but the bad guys will still have them.
How convenient.Quote:
Originally Posted by scfire86
Exactly. There's far more to the issue than banning guns, we have a real issue with personal responsibility, devaluation of human life and looking for quick fixes that solve nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by scfire86
It is so readily apparent that you search these forums for these types of topics. Your posts are nonsenical and troll like serving no purpose other than to enflame. Sorry I am not getting upset I mostly laugh at your indefensible posturing.Quote:
Originally Posted by scfire86
My bet is trials don't last for YEARS, with massive appeals. Health care issues, including mental health, are more readily addressed by society. Seems pretty simple...probably not enough money in that for lawyers and health care providers in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by scfire86
This si the beginning of the article regarding the shootings right here on Firehouse:
NEWTOWN, Conn. (AP) — A season that should be a time of joy has been marked by heart-wrenching loss in Newtown, as more victims from the massacre of 20 children and six adults are laid to rest.
At least nine funerals and wakes were held Wednesday for those who died when gunman Adam Lanza, armed with a military-style assault rifle, broke into Sandy Hook Elementary School Friday and opened fire. Lanza killed his mother at her home before the attack and committed suicide at the school as police closed in.
On Thursday, five funerals and six wakes were planned, and more tributes were scheduled for Friday and Saturday.
"The first few days, all you heard were helicopters," said Dr. Joseph Young, an optometrist who attended one funeral and would go to several more. "Now at my office all I hear is the rumble of motorcycle escorts and funeral processions going back and forth throughout.
Note the area in red. I have no idea if FH rights their own copy or if it was pulled from the general media. but we all know this was not a military style assault rifle that was used but a high-powered hunting rifle, which was 100% legal in CT.
The fact is the mainstream liberal media will continue to push that this was an assault rifle even though it was not in an effort to push their anti-gun agenda. Unfortunately the public will believe this crap until they are told otherwise. and it is likely that if they hear this assault rifle crap enough, even when given the truth later on that this was not the the case they won't believe it or already have their minds made up.
First we started out talking about banning fully automatic weapons. now we are talking about banning semi-automatic. problem is the bad guys have access to the tens of thousands (if not more) of both types that are already out there. Bottom line is the public should have access to the exact same firepower that the criminals do.
I am passionate about my guaranteed rights under the constitution and I won't apologize for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by braidjansen
You haven't learned yet that he sets the parameters of what you can interject and the ridiculousness of his own constantly stretching and off topic attempts at debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by RFDACM02