How many innocent lives are your guns worth?

[canndo]

Depends, is this a 'general possession/ownership' question, or are you using it to defend yourself?

In general, measuring the necessity for each in an average lifetime.

 

[Figong]

-snip- poisoning the waterways with not a word and then denying they have done so in the face of cancer clusters - those can't be judged as tyrannical? -snip-

Ahh, like Dow Chemical in Sarnia, Ontario is doing to Lake Huron and the St. Clair River, right next to Michigan by dumping mass amounts of mercury to the point that you can't safely eat more than 1 fish a month or 2? Good idea, let's wipe out Canada, those tyrannical bastards. (Your words paired with my pro-active response to mitigate the issue - as one would use a firearm, in a defensive situation.)) To be more clear, Dow simply gets away with murder, and needs to be put back in a 'proper alignment'. Dow hasn't produced anything magical in many years, and we should be more clear with those who are on our US borders what is tolerable and what is not, instead of letting them destroy the largest fresh water lakes in the -world-.

I am Figong, I am pro 2A, anti-bullshit, and I approve this message.

 

[Figong]

In general, measuring the necessity for each in an average lifetime.

Ahh, that's easy (to me) - the gun goes much further, as a means of providing defense, a source of food. A car speeds things along, which you could otherwise do without it.. would just take a bit more creativity and a ton more time.

 

[canndo]

No, you've got a leader that can't lead by example. That’s a fact, not an observation.

Because the premise of your argument is lacking, you've jumped hook, line & sinker onto my Obama bait. Fuck me you people just need the slightest whiff of his arsehole and you jump in whole-heartedly....

This is not about POTUS, I merely pointed out a flaw in the way his administration have conducted themselves over the last 4 years.

The issue here is with all your ignorant diatribes inferring "THINK OF THE CHILDREN".

Where you up in arms when;

- The US sent its children half way across the world to invade countries that posed no threat
- Bombed the people of Iraq, Af/Pak, Somalia, Yemen etc
- Propped up and funded the very jihadists we were fighting against
- Beslan school massacre

Why do you think american children are somehow immune or exempt from the killings?

And who the fuck do you think you are inferring law abiding gun owners are somehow responsibe for the deaths of children, gunned down by whackjobs?

edit - what are your views on military personal? just mindless killers...?

So you backed off from every single point you made - wonder why, maybe because I am not going to lay down before your superior intellect as so many righties seem to expect. So what is your answer? how does the country instill upon it's people sense of self responsibility - that final accomplishment that will make all right within the country but that which you cannot describe a plan for without using a government you despise.

or are you gong to crawdad away from he strong posistion you previously made? Is it Obama's fault? you seem to say yes and you seem to back peddle at the same time.


You accuse me of being unable to determine the difference between an innatimate object and a human being. I know that objects can be dealt with in a legal and orderly way from manufacture to sale. It may not be purfect but it does not serve to attempt to alter the fabric of he culture of this country half so much as your call for the impossible might.

As I said, you folks tend to twist yourself into very very odd logical shapes when you seek to actually defend your ideology - why is that?

Now - you said "you've got a leader who can't lead (though his leadership ability certainly surpassed our other choice) and then you say this s NOT about te POTUS, surely you aren't subjecting to the abstract simply because you can't seem to defend one statement made directly after another - whom do we blame sir, for having a country full of people who in your opinion are incapable of personal responsibility?



Although this is hardly on point my view on military personel is that they are... military pesonel who have been properly indoctrinated to do a certain thing that most of them ordinarily implore - and do it on command.


Oh, and yes those 'law abiding gun owners who insist upon every single inch of their rights, where no other right enjoys such a hands off irresponsible position - they are unwilling to give up even the most fundamental portion of their gun owning existance - that makes them culpable.

Inherenent in the rght of a free press is the right to say anything one wishes - but there are limits even to that right. You yourself rebel against that damn leftist media in the way it distorts the news and tells you things that you don't want to hear and you would be all for some law - curtailing that RIGHT, but you can't have that with guns, no that right is somehow inviolate, somehow just extra special. and, let me guess, the other fundamental right that protects our freedom equaly if not more than the right to keep and bear is the right to vote.


But you don't see a problem with even that right being regulated - id being required, essentialy background checks, money being spent and in the long run plenty of law abiding citizens being deprived of their right. But when it comes to guns no such limitations shall apply shall they? Why EVERY grandma has the absolute unfettered right to any firearm she so chooses, even if she has to go through a dozen different near impossible hoops to retrieve her right to vote.


A significant portion of personal responsibility is intellectual honesty. Try it on see how it fits.

 

[canndo]

Ahh, that's easy (to me) - the gun goes much further, as a means of providing defense, a source of food. A car speeds things along, which you could otherwise do without it.. would just take a bit more creativity and a ton more time.

So you are saying that a bow and arrow might not suffice - needing a bit more creativity and a ton more time.

 

[deprave]

OK

First, let me say that I have no interest in punishing lawful gun owners. Second, I don't feel that there is any legislation that could be passed that would prevent a nutter like Adam Lanza from shooting up a school.

So, IMO, there should be a mandatory screening process any time a person buys/acquires/takes possession of a gun. No exceptions. Criteria needs to be set in place as to who is, and who isn't allowed to own a firearm (ie someone convicted of a violent felony). There should also be mandatory training involved if you wish to carry your gun, with mandatory classes to be taken every year or so. If people want to carry in public, they should be able to show some proficiency in the use of that gun, and an understanding of the laws. There should also be a registration process for all firearms. I understand the slippery slope involved in this, but the goal here should be to weed out the criminals, not punish the law abiding gun owners. Sentences should be EXTREMELY stiff for anyone caught with a gun that does not belong to them. Straight to prison, minimum mandatory 5 year sentence just for possession of the gun. This to me is where legislation could have the biggest positive impact. Perhaps a young kid will think twice about carrying around a stolen gun if he knows the severity of the penalty.

Outside of that, I don't see much else that would be effective. Limiting the types of guns, and the capacity of the magazines is a bit trivial, imo. I personally don't see the need for a citizen to own an automatic weapon with a 100 round clip, but if the person is a law abiding gun owner, then I feel his/her right to own said weapons outweighs the potential societal benefit of any laws limiting the types of guns he/she could own.

So your suggesting exactly what we already have, so you have no god damn suggestions, typical, as LifeGoesonBrah wrote, Gun Control Advocates NEVER have any sane logic or actual proposals for implmentation, they just spout propaganda, ad hominim, red hearing, straw mans, and usually have absolutely no idea what they are talking about often times they haven't even fired a gun. If someone could explain what these "Reasonable" gun control measures are SPECIFICALLY we are all ears. I have never heard a single true sound logically consistent argument for gun control, ever.


*there should be a mandatory screening process any time a person buys/acquires/takes possession of a gun. <---Already in place

*Criteria needs to be set in place as to who is, and who isn't allowed to own a firearm (ie someone convicted of a violent felony <---Already exists

*There should also be mandatory training involved if you wish to carry your gun, with mandatory classes to be taken every year or so. <--Already exists

*If people want to carry in public, they should be able to show some proficiency in the use of that gun, and an understanding of the laws. <--Already exists

*There should also be a registration process for all firearms. <--Pretty much its already in place as for pistols and other types of weapons (dependent on what state you live in) its ridiculous and acomplishes nothing however.

*Sentences should be EXTREMELY stiff for anyone caught with a gun that does not belong to them. Straight to prison, minimum mandatory 5 year sentence just for possession of the gun. <---Already exists

 

[kelly4]

Nope, but they get most of us to work every day, something that a gun rarely manages to accomplish unless you are a car jacker.

There's not many carjackings where I live....thank you Colorado gun laws.

 

[deprave]

I personally don't see the need for a citizen to own an automatic weapon with a 100 round clip

Already illegal, welp I havent read the whole thread I admit but it looks like that covered every suggestion the gun control advocates made in this thread. I am sure the rest of them are also logically inconsistent or irrational as I have never heard a suggestion they have made that isn't, and again I am all ears and ive yet to hear this "reasonable gun control measures" described specifically in detail anywhere, all I hear is that pro-gunners "Just won't listen they just jump straight to tyranny or 'DEY TOOK OUR GUNS' and act like irrational animals" it seems quite the opposite to me.

 

[Figong]

So you are saying that a bow and arrow might not suffice - needing a bit more creativity and a ton more time.

When I can also take said bullets apart, and use components as an impromptu firestarter, with a 9v battery and a brillo pad.. using gunpowder as a small buffer for drying damp wood.. yes.. a bow and arrow may not suffice, in terms of that form of survival-type aspect. As for bow and arrow, I could entertain it for hunting.. however, some may wish to not sling a bow where they're carrying a rucksack loaded w/first aid gear, climbing/rappeling gear/etc.. as I have in my ruck, with everything short of a kitchen sink in tow.. Another reason for firearm over bow & arrow... in Michigan, we have quite a bit of wooded area, and with that comes bears. I've seen bears take a few shots and still keep charging, bow and arrow would work from a tree stand.. assuming you got excellent placement, and if you didn't and it came up the tree after you.. you'd be a snack. I'd rather roll the dice with critical organ shot placement and a gun than a bow and arrow vs said animal any day of the week - to be honest with you.

 

[canndo]

Already illegal

As I've pointed out before - that sort of proves, contrary to the gun folk claim - that gun control Does indeed work.

 

[canndo]

When I can also take said bullets apart, and use components as an impromptu firestarter, with a 9v battery and a brillo pad.. using gunpowder as a small buffer for drying damp wood.. yes.. a bow and arrow may not suffice, in terms of that form of survival-type aspect. As for bow and arrow, I could entertain it for hunting.. however, some may wish to not sling a bow where they're carrying a rucksack loaded w/first aid gear, climbing/rappeling gear/etc.. as I have in my ruck, with everything short of a kitchen sink in tow.. Another reason for firearm over bow & arrow... in Michigan, we have quite a bit of wooded area, and with that comes bears. I've seen bears take a few shots and still keep charging, bow and arrow would work from a tree stand.. assuming you got excellent placement, and if you didn't and it came up the tree after you.. you'd be a snack. I'd rather roll the dice with critical organ shot placement and a gun than a bow and arrow vs said animal any day of the week - to be honest with you.

Now apply that to urban living - the sort of living that most of us currently are engaged in, which in general, over the long run is the more valuable machine?

 

[deprave]

As I've pointed out before - that sort of proves, contrary to the gun folk claim - that gun control Does indeed work.

what?


Did you specifically detail any "reasonable gun control policy" anywhere in this thread? Get back at me when you do because you probably deserve a nobel prize, you would be the first to come up with any.

 

[Doer]

As I've pointed out before - that sort of proves, contrary to the gun folk claim - that gun control Does indeed work.

Sophistry! Proves nothing. There is no cause and effect. No one claims anything. It exists. You make that a proof the Agenda working?
Sit back down, please. You may be an arm chair lawyer, but false argument is ugly.

 

[Figong]

Already illegal

Quite illegal, citing:


"Violators may be fined not more than $250,000, and imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. In addition, any vessel, vehicle or aircraft used to transport, conceal or possess an unregistered NFA firearm is subject to seizure and forfeiture, as is the weapon itself.
[49 U.S.C. 781-788, 26 U.S.C. 5861 and 5872]"

 

[Flaming Pie]

As I've pointed out before - that sort of proves, contrary to the gun folk claim - that gun control Does indeed work.

The only thing his statement proves is that 100rd mags are illegal.

To prove that it "worked" you would have to show irrefutable evidence that links the banning of 100rd mags to lowered killings with those mags.

You really are grasping at straws.

 

[canndo]

what?


Did you specifically detail any "reasonable gun control policy" anywhere in this thread? Get back at me when you do because you probably deserve a nobel prize, you would be the first to come up with any.

I did not, others have claimed over and over again that gun control does not work. Someone mentioned an inability to acquire fully automatic weapons - proof that gun control does work - now what of that are you willing to dispute? that someone somewhere can acquire a machine gun? fine, but the majority of the time for the majority of the folks, they cannot get a fully automatic weapon - why?

 

[deprave]

I did not, others have claimed over and over again that gun control does not work. Someone mentioned an inability to acquire fully automatic weapons - proof that gun control does work - now what of that are you willing to dispute? that someone somewhere can acquire a machine gun? fine, but the majority of the time for the majority of the folks, they cannot get a fully automatic weapon - why?

Hello?

DO you have a "Reasonable Gun Control policy" we keep hearing so much about but have yet to hear any details? You know the policy's that "we just won't listen to because we are too stubborn"......Well we are listening...and we never hear anything...


Why the fuck are you suggestion something so vague? What the fuck is wrong with you? Just what the hell are you suggesting?

 

[kelly4]

I did not, others have claimed over and over again that gun control does not work. Someone mentioned an inability to acquire fully automatic weapons - proof that gun control does work - now what of that are you willing to dispute? that someone somewhere can acquire a machine gun? fine, but the majority of the time for the majority of the folks, they cannot get a fully automatic weapon - why?

Anyone who can pass the back ground check and pay the fees can get a fully automatic weapon. It will cost money and take time, though.

 

[Figong]

Now apply that to urban living - the sort of living that most of us currently are engaged in, which in general, over the long run is the more valuable machine?

Urban living.. we'll pick 2 major cities in Michigan, which is the state in which I reside. 1 in 4 are involved in a shooting/stabbing or a death statistically, per capita in Flint. Here's a quick list of some recent things in Flint, as well:



Looking at the above example.. I'll keep the gun.

Detroit? I -may- take the car, as long as I don't have to go downtown... but that point is sort of moot as my firearm is on me for 1 reason, and 1 reason only. My sidearm is just that, and that's where it stays.. short of being in bed, or in shower.. and at that point - it's within reach. I, as a responsible marksman, (qual at 90%+ per, which is higher than most state police in other states) do not carry because I am looking for a problem or wanting a fight - I carry because I wish to be left alone, and at the end of the day.. will let loose every bit of the fight left in this dog to ensure I come home to my wife and son. No tolerence, no mercy.. if my life is threatened, there would be no hesitation.

 

[Flaming Pie]

I did not, others have claimed over and over again that gun control does not work. Someone mentioned an inability to acquire fully automatic weapons - proof that gun control does work - now what of that are you willing to dispute? that someone somewhere can acquire a machine gun? fine, but the majority of the time for the majority of the folks, they cannot get a fully automatic weapon - why?

Lawful citizens cannot obtain those guns BECAUSE they are lawful citizens.

Criminals (people with records) will get handguns and rifles WITHOUT registering, doing a background check etc. They just need to find someone willing to sell their firearm.