Author Topic: A discussion about gun ownership  (Read 42009 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline freediver

  • Posts: 193
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #20 on: October 09, 2015, 07:21:52 AM »
Mr Ultra: Judging from what you wrote, I would consider you a single issue voter. Why? Because you pass judgement on people and politicians through the very narrow lens of gun ownership. Owning a gun in our society is merely one facet of living among your fellow citizens. The only issue at hand is not gun ownership. There are a wide range of issues we have to deal with and owning a gun is not the answer to every problem. When I listen to an individual, when I vote for a politician, I consider the whole picture. Is the person capable of complex critical thinking, and will the solutions they propose benefit all of us? Not just the narrow band of friends that I have. Public safety for all citizens is at least as important as gun rights in my mind. I'm not comfortable with any man, woman, or child walking in and purchasing a firearm without producing a scrap of ID, then tucking it into their pocket or purse and wandering through society with it. Why am I not comfortable with it? Because gun owners have demonstrated again and again and again that they are not responsible with a deadly weapon. Over 220,000 firearms are lost or stolen each year, FROM GUN OWNERS. Accidental shootings and deaths run in the thousands each year, FROM GUN OWNERS. Firearms make their way into the hands of crazies or criminals each year, FROM GUN OWNERS (Oregon, Sandy Hook) or FFLs. I can tell you from personal experience that unless you are competent, mentally and physically, and have been trained in tactical shooting situations (and practice routinely), you are not that "good guy with a gun". We gun owners have demonstrated that AS A WHOLE GROUP, we cannot be entrusted with deadly weapons.

This forum is about gun safety and policy. So how do we, the gun owners, police ourselves? That's what we're really talking about. Rather than dwell in denial and foist the responsibility for US on someone else (politicians, liberal gun haters), let's be honest and proactive. We have a problem with gun violence and ownership in this country. We, the owners, are the ones responsible for these problems. We know best how to solve these problems, and so far a completely deregulated gun environment has not and will not work. Rather than dwell in denial, continually saying no to every sensible solution that is offered, we need to take control of our destiny. As gun owners we need to step up to our responsibility and raise the bar on gun ownership. Mandatory training and locked storage, proficiency requirements, tracking of gun registrations in order to combat gun trafficking, better coordination with mental health experts, stiffer penalties for abusers, universal background checks; all these would HELP solve the problem. But first and foremost, we the gun owners need to decide that WE deserve better, that we can do better, and we owe it to ALL our fellow citizens to do better. And if we don't, at some point those liberal gun haters that some of us sneer at will ram something down our throats that we really don't like.

And Mr Tuctom: is that enough of an answer for you?

Offline Theraven536

  • Posts: 33
  • First Name (Displayed): Ken
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #21 on: October 09, 2015, 07:34:30 AM »
The guy in your video is the one that brought up driver licenses, etc. as a way to legitimize mandated training and periodic firearms qualification like drivers have to do and like he had to do as a cop.  The problem with that is that would be an undue burden and unconstitutional.  Would you deny a grandmother the ability to legally own or carry a gun because she's not had extensive training and is not proficient on a firearms course like he is?  Plenty of grandmas have used guns to save their own lives.  Would this jerk and you prefer they be dead today?  Firearms and self-defense are constitutionally protected.  Driving a car is not.

How about this.  How about we demand people be able to pass a proficiency exam before they are allowed to vote?  We can't have uninformed, unintelligent voters making such important decisions that affect not only the entire United States, but the world.  The ballot box is much more dangerous than a gun.
All you forgot :
*Drops mic, walks off stage*

*slow clap*
Point, game, match!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Offline freediver

  • Posts: 193
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #22 on: October 09, 2015, 07:44:58 AM »
Mr gryphon: I fail to see how mandated licensing and training requirements places an undue burden on you. That sounds pretty wimpy to me. It does not restrict your rights whatsoever. What those policies do is acknowledge that guns by their very nature are deadly weapons. Before we entrust you with said weapon in a complex society, knowing that you as a human are subject to all kinds of frailty (mental and physical) and passionate moments, we would like to know that you are worthy of said trust. If your grandma wishes to be entrusted with this deadly weapon, then, yes, she should step up to the plate, get the training, and show proficiency and currency. That way we, her fellow citizens, know that when she carries, open or concealed, we can trust her to handle her weapon safely and competently. We can trust her to be that "good gal" with a gun. Otherwise there are many other ways to protect life and limb.
Yes, gun ownership is constitutionally protected. So is each citizen's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, free speech, freedom of religion, etc. The constitution tries to balance those rights. If we have a bunch of unregulated, incompetent wing nuts out there packing firearms, my rights have just been abridged. My life is threatened by their incompetence or craziness or criminality. I do not have liberty because I am not free to live my life in a secure, unabridged manner. I certainly cannot pursue happiness because they might go off and pull out a gun if I take the last bag of chips they wanted. If they take issue with my religion, or my speech, or any other of my constitutionally guaranteed rights, they may pull out a gun and take away my rights. So as their fellow citizen, I deserve some guarantees that they are a responsible gun owner.
That's what we're talking about, responsibility. I don't assume anything. I don't assume that you"re crazy or a criminal or anything else. But I also don't assume that you are competent and responsible either. "Trust but verify" comes to mind. I firmly believe in your right to carry, open or concealed. But before I trust you with that right, I deserve some guarantees of safety from you. The responsibility of competency, mental and physical, of safety, and of knowledge, falls on you the gun owner. Like driving, flying an airplane, operating heavy equipment, or using a scalpel, the responsibility falls on us, the gun owners, to show that we can be entrusted with the very lives of our fellow citizens. So don't quote BS about the constitution to me. As gun owners we should be willing to show that we can be entrusted with this very sober responsibility.

Mr Tuctom, is that enough of an answer for you?

Offline freediver

  • Posts: 193
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #23 on: October 09, 2015, 07:48:22 AM »
Mr theraven536: I like your point about competent voters. Personally I am dismayed by the sheer ignorance of many of our fellow citizens, that the Kardashians draw more publicity than serious topics, that a vaudevillian like the donald sits atoms some polls. It's the world we live in. Should we perhaps be working harder on improving education and critical thinking? I think so!

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3989
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #24 on: October 09, 2015, 10:45:06 AM »
you pass judgement on people and politicians through the very narrow lens of gun ownership.  Owning a gun in our society is merely one facet of living among your fellow citizens.

It may be only one facet, but it's a good barometer to use.  If someone is willing to throw the Constitution away or abridge your rights in one area, they'll do it in others.

Quote
gun owners have demonstrated again and again and again that they are not responsible with a deadly weapon.

No they haven't.  Out of 367 million guns and over 100 million gun owners, such a tiny fraction commit gun crimes it's statistically insignificant.

Quote
Over 220,000 firearms are lost or stolen each year, FROM GUN OWNERS.

What's the percentage of gun owners who lose their guns?  Do you even know?  Who loses their guns more often, the average citizen gun owners or law enforcement?  As for stolen, I blame the criminal, not the victim.

Quote
Accidental shootings and deaths run in the thousands each year, FROM GUN OWNERS.

Not sure this is accurate.

Quote
We have a problem with gun violence and ownership in this country. We, the owners, are the ones responsible for these problems.

I disagree.  I am not responsible for other people who commit gun violence.  I would favor reform of the legal system, though, where people who have committed violent crimes get locked up and stay locked up, not walk around on the street with a rap sheet showing 50 arrests for serious offenses.

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3989
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #25 on: October 09, 2015, 11:04:36 AM »
Mr gryphon: I fail to see how mandated licensing and training requirements places an undue burden on you.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  It infringes on my right to bear arms.  Again, should we place all sorts of restrictions on voting?  Or the practice of religion?

Quote
Yes, gun ownership is constitutionally protected. So is each citizen's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, free speech, freedom of religion, etc.  If we have a bunch of unregulated, incompetent wing nuts out there packing firearms, my rights have just been abridged.

Just because you have an irrational fear of others doesn't mean your rights have been abridged.  You are still free to pursue happiness.  Whether you are afraid of gun owners or minorities is immaterial.

Quote
My life is threatened by their incompetence or craziness or criminality.

Your life may be threatened my someone's craziness or criminality any day for any number of reasons.  If you want to live in a bubble, may I suggest the desert of the southwest or perhaps Montana or the interior of Alaska?

Quote
I do not have liberty because I am not free to live my life in a secure, unabridged manner. I certainly cannot pursue happiness because they might go off and pull out a gun if I take the last bag of chips they wanted. If they take issue with my religion, or my speech, or any other of my constitutionally guaranteed rights, they may pull out a gun and take away my rights.

And making them take a lengthy and expensive training class solves that problem?  Tell me, in today's "under-regulated" environment (as you claim) of 367 million guns and 100 million gun owners, how often does someone pull out a gun and kill another person because they took the last bag of chips?  Or are you simply displaying an irrational fear of others?  Professors at the University of Texas are saying the same thing.  They claim that students are going to murder them if they give them a bad grade now.  As if they couldn't before.  They aren't critical thinkers, just anti-gun liberals.

Quote
So as their fellow citizen, I deserve some guarantees that they are a responsible gun owner.

No, you don't.  You may think you do, but you deserve no guarantees, and there can be no guarantees.  Again, it's the price of living in a free society.  You have no guarantees that you won't be killed by a drunk driver tonight.  Over 10 thousand people are killed by drunk drivers every year, and over 29 million people have admitted to DUI (driving under the influence).  Nearly 300,000 people drive drunk each day.  Society could fix that problem by outlawing alcohol, but we don't because we have chosen to live in a free society.  We just punish those who violate the law.  We do the same thing with firearms.  We don't punish or put undue burdens on the innocent.

Quote
I deserve some guarantees of safety from you.

Again, no you don't.

Offline part deux

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 683
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #26 on: October 09, 2015, 11:20:58 AM »
Accidental shootings and deaths run in the thousands each year, FROM GUN OWNERS.

35,000 people die in auto accidents each and every year
2013 accidental deaths ages 5-25
Motor vehicle deaths 56.0%
poisoning 28.3%
drowning 4.3%
fall 1.6%
fire/burn 1.2%
pedestrian 1.1%
suffocation 1.0%

We STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO ACCIDENTAL DEATHS DUE TO FIREARMS
Firearm 0.9%

So what are you doing about the top 7 items that comprised 93.5% of all accidental deaths between the ages of 5-24 besides trolling here?

Offline Bear1

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #27 on: October 09, 2015, 12:26:16 PM »
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/accidental-deaths/

This is how you post a link to back up your statistics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline part deux

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 683
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #28 on: October 09, 2015, 02:35:20 PM »
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/accidental-deaths/

This is how you post a link to back up your statistics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i normally cite my claims and source... however i did a CDC search for my stats and the link from the search wouldn't post correctly.

the reason for 5-24 age range was prior troll posts making claims of the number of children accidentally killed.

Offline Bear1

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #29 on: October 09, 2015, 03:02:00 PM »
That wasn't directed at you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Ultra

  • More Than You Bargained For
  • Posts: 72
  • Ultranewschannel.tumblr.com
    • Autopuzzles
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #30 on: October 09, 2015, 07:35:33 PM »
Mr Freediver, if you had read for comprehensions sake, you'd have known I didn't write that quoted part of my post. 

Trolls don't read for comprehension's sake. 

See, Freediver, you trust your government more than you trust your fellow man.  I trust my fellow man more than I trust my government. It's that simple.

That's the difference between you and I. None of your prevaricating posts or trolling topics will make it any different.

« Last Edit: October 09, 2015, 07:54:15 PM by Ultra »
Ultranewschannel.Tumblr.Com

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3989
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #31 on: October 09, 2015, 08:55:08 PM »
None of your prevaricating posts or trolling topics will make it any different.

So stop your palaverin'. :D

Offline Ultra

  • More Than You Bargained For
  • Posts: 72
  • Ultranewschannel.tumblr.com
    • Autopuzzles
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #32 on: October 09, 2015, 09:06:13 PM »
So stop your palaverin'. :D

Perhaps young Padawan peruses his own prescription.  :P
Ultranewschannel.Tumblr.Com

Offline CitizensHaveRights

  • Posts: 1010
  • First Name (Displayed): Mitch
"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed "  - Who has a right to keep and eat food, The People or A Well Balanced Breakfast?

Offline jabeady

  • Posts: 9
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #34 on: October 11, 2015, 02:07:52 PM »
The very first thing out of his uninformed pie-hole was "folks, we got a problem" because anyone can buy his Ruger from him without going through an FFL and a NICS check.

Well, people dying from gun violence *is* a problem.  So is people dying from obesity.  Neither cause can be eradicated but both can be fought.  A lot of people who want to fight gun violence are no more enemies of gun ownership than people who want to fight obesity are of eating. 

See, Freediver, you trust your government more than you trust your fellow man.  I trust my fellow man more than I trust my government. It's that simple.

The government is made up of my (and your) fellow man.  If the government does things that you don't like, it's because you didn't work hard enough to elect a government that would do things you do like.  Your government is your fault; quit trying to blame someone else.  It's that simple.

Suppose the Second Amendment said “A well educated electorate being necessary for self governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.” Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read? — Robert Levy, Georgetown University Professor

Excellent!  Copied to my Facebook page.

Oh crap!

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3989
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #35 on: October 11, 2015, 02:47:36 PM »
Well, people dying from gun violence *is* a problem.  A lot of people who want to fight gun violence are no more enemies of gun ownership...

I understand that.  The problem is with people like that guy who just "want to do something" whether it makes any sense or not and without regard to infringing on the rights of citizens.

Every time a well-publicized shooting takes place, some people want to close the "gun show loophole" and institute universal background checks to prevent these shootings from happening.  That was one of the complaints of the youtuber above, that he could sell a gun without the buyer going through a NICS check.  Fine.  Let's look at each of these high-profile shootings.

The Umpqua CC shooter Christopher Harper-Mercer legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.

The Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.

The Isla Vista shooter Eliot Rodgers legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.

The Colorado theater shooter James Holmes legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.

The Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho legally purchased his guns from FFLs and had background checks performed.

The Ft. Hood shooter Ivan Lopez legally purchased his guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.

The other Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.

The Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had background checks–state and federal–performed. He also had a security clearance.

The Minneapolis shooter Andrew John Engeldinger legally purchased his guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.

The Las Vegas shooters Jerad and Amanda Miller legally purchased their guns from an FFL and had background checks performed.

The Tucson shooter Jared Loughner legally purchased his gun from an FFL and had a background check performed.

The Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza used legally purchased guns, he just murdered the owner first and then stole them.

There's more cases just like these where the shooter legally bought his guns from an FFL and had a background check performed. And as I've pointed out here before more than once, the guns used in the Columbine shooting were a straw purchase, but the ATF declined to even prosecute the straw buyer.

Why do liberals and "well-meaning" people like this youtuber think that non-FFL sales are causing mass shooting problems?

What law could we have passed that would have prevented those shootings?

Offline jabeady

  • Posts: 9
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #36 on: October 11, 2015, 06:43:27 PM »
What law could we have passed that would have prevented those shootings?

There isn't one, of course.  The problem is that one side feels so desperate to do something because it perceives that the other side is dead-set against doing anything. 

Oh crap!

Offline Ultra

  • More Than You Bargained For
  • Posts: 72
  • Ultranewschannel.tumblr.com
    • Autopuzzles
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #37 on: October 11, 2015, 11:28:54 PM »
Quote
The government is made up of my (and your) fellow man.  If the government does things that you don't like, it's because you didn't work hard enough to elect a government that would do things you do like.  Your government is your fault; quit trying to blame someone else.  It's that simple.

Poppycock. I and no other individual elect a government. Governments are made up, with very rare exception, of people who wish to have power over others and will sell their souls in order to attain it. I'm not blaming anyone for it as it is the very nature of the institution. Government is force and nothing but.  It is the polar opposite of Liberty.  Your inability to perceive it as such reveals even more about you than your laughable attempt to blame me for the totality of illegal and immoral actions of the denizens of the federal monolith. 

You trust the legal monopoly on the use of force in a given geographic boundary more than you do your fellow man. I trust my fellow man MUCH, MUCH more than I do an institution that, by its very nature, has power over all and no effective restraint on that power.

Government and Liberty are opposing concepts. More of one yields less of the other.

It's that simple and, frankly, I don't expect you to even attempt to understand it.

Ultranewschannel.Tumblr.Com

Offline TheQ

  • Website Content Manager
  • MOC Lifetime Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4263
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
  • First Name (Displayed): Phillip
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #38 on: October 12, 2015, 11:01:34 AM »
Whoa. We have another troll?

https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/lysander-spooner/no-treason-the-constitution-of-no-authority/

I'll give that to the guy who says the government is "our" fault.
I Am Not A Lawyer (nor a gunsmith).

Offline jabeady

  • Posts: 9
Re: A discussion about gun ownership
« Reply #39 on: October 12, 2015, 11:13:08 AM »
Poppycock. I and no other individual elect a government.
Correct.  It's a group effort and you are part of the group.

Quote
Governments are made up, with very rare exception, of people who wish to have power over others and will sell their souls in order to attain it.
And they got there by working for it.  They pounded the pavement, knocked on doors, shook hands, spoke in front of groups, kissed babies and (I'm sure you believe) made all kinds of deals to get into office.  They worked hard to convince people to put them where they are.

Did you do *anything* to block the path of even one of them?

Quote
You trust the legal monopoly on the use of force in a given geographic boundary more than you do your fellow man. I trust my fellow man MUCH, MUCH more than I do an institution that, by its very nature, has power over all and no effective restraint on that power.
Your fellow man created and maintains that institution, and you trust him.  You're right, I'll never understand such convoluted thinking.

Quote
Government and Liberty are opposing concepts. More of one yields less of the other.

If you don't like the way things are being done, do something about it.  If you don't do something about it, then you're telling me that things aren't bad enough for you to be bothered.


Oh crap!