Gun News Talk

[Joe the meek]

You admit to using a rifle for target shooting for instance.

Yeah, because I wasn't going out west any more and taking 600 yard shots at elk anymore:24:

Guys don't normally take a Remington Matchmaster out on a killing spree.

The gun was invented and designed to kill. Yes, there have been sporting rifles and target rifles out sometime due to the advances of technology, but the gun is still the most effective tool for the killing of one civilian by another civilian you'll find in the marketplace.

My 1930's Winchester 60A target rifle is a great plinker for the kids, but it was used by my father to kill rabbits and squirrels for food on the table. I don't need the gun for food now.

 

[The Man]

I've basically given up on this debate in this forum. The group of people participating here is so small and polarized, that it is not productive wasting the time to post. You'll see less and less of me and that is worthy of a cheer to at least to some of you.

It all boils down to having a serious issue (guns and gun deaths) and a group of tone deaf people who have placed their perception of the ease of gun ownership, no regulations, no records, as their number one priority, because they are waiting for the next revolution. This is the most important thing to them. Who cares if 20+k people are killed each year by guns, it could be a million, it could be worse than the wild west out there, but by God no one is going to take my gun! Even though no one is trying to take their guns.

Still waiting on those statistics of homicides caused by "loopholes" {gunshows}
You must also remember that even with these closed loopholes many of these people will still obtain firearms ...through private purchase or theft.
Then you also have to consider even if the firearm didnt exist people would use alternate methods to kill.
Granted deaths would go down slightly as heat of the moment murders would be reduced a little...but wait there is always the knife.
The point is that closing the gun show loophole...does not equal no firearm deaths.

Also homicides have been going down...not up...what the hell is the fuss?

 

[Accountable]

I've basically given up on this debate in this forum. The group of people participating here is so small and polarized, that it is not productive wasting the time to post. You'll see less and less of me and that is worthy of a cheer to at least to some of you.

It all boils down to having a serious issue (guns and gun deaths) and a group of tone deaf people who have placed their perception of the ease of gun ownership, no regulations, no records, as their number one priority, because they are waiting for the next revolution. This is the most important thing to them. Who cares if 20+k people are killed each year by guns, it could be a million, it could be worse than the wild west out there, but by God no one is going to take my gun! Even though no one is trying to take their guns.

You spout things you've heard that resonate with you, and you get frustrated when others don't just unquestioningly fall in line like you did. Go pout then come back. While you're gone, try to come up with some answers for the many questions I and others have asked you that you refuse to even acknowledge.

 

[Minor Axis]

Still waiting on those statistics of homicides caused by "loopholes" {gunshows}
You must also remember that even with these closed loopholes many of these people will still obtain firearms ...through private purchase or theft.
Then you also have to consider even if the firearm didnt exist people would use alternate methods to kill.
Granted deaths would go down slightly as heat of the moment murders would be reduced a little...but wait there is always the knife.
The point is that closing the gun show loophole...does not equal no firearm deaths.

Also homicides have been going down...not up...what the hell is the fuss?

Background checks are a standard or it is not. Standard means uniform. Just say you are against background checks and drop the pretenses.

Heard on MSNBC: Philadelphia Mayor Nutter who supports enforcing current gun laws while adding new restrictions on gun purchasing and access: "I support the Second Amendment, but I have a First Amendment right not to get shot."

 

[The Man]

Background checks are a standard or it is not. Standard means uniform. Just say you are against background checks and drop the pretenses.

Heard on MSNBC: Philadelphia Mayor Nutter who supports enforcing current gun laws while adding new restrictions on gun purchasing and access: "I support the Second Amendment, but I have a First Amendment right not to get shot."

I was for the background checks and close the gun show loophole...the more you post however the more I find they accomplish very little.

 

[Accountable]

[video=youtube;Y1Zzu2FSxdc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1Zzu2FSxdc[/video]

 

[Accountable]

Posted by a family member:

What if, mandatorily, a tiny digital camera was placed inside all guns, which took pictures of the shooter and what they're shooting every time they took a shot. These pictures would immediately be sent to the nearest police station. A designated person in the police station could monitor any pictures that come in and could determine if they are hunting, shooting targets, or committing murder. Then people would still get their damn guns, but would be completely and immediately accountable for their gun use, thereby preventing many gun deaths and stopping murderers.

 

[Accountable]

I'm having a 2nd Amendment discussion on another board. This comment came up from an Aussie:

In accordance with what was written in your link Acc In todays terms the words ""Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'"


Doesn't that mena if a civil war broke out in your country the citizens can arm themselves, or create their own militias, or use their own weapons in the militias? As I believe has been demonstrated once before .
I don't see anything in those writings to state that citizens can arm themselves against other citizens. Which is normally the case when gun control comes up . I read the 'rights of the people" ......"not persons"


I see two very different worlds here historically.

This is the link she referred to: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Part of my response:
I see your point. Perhaps someone could argue the point that we have the right to remain armed as a deterrent against foreign attack or tyrannical domestic government, but not to bear arms against each other. I don't remember ever having heard or read that angle. Good food for thought! It would certainly rectify the conflict between the amendment text and urban areas' need for tighter security than rural areas.

What say you?

 

[porterjack]

I'm having a 2nd Amendment discussion on another board. This comment came up from an Aussie:


This is the link she referred to: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Part of my response:
I see your point. Perhaps someone could argue the point that we have the right to remain armed as a deterrent against foreign attack or tyrannical domestic government, but not to bear arms against each other. I don't remember ever having heard or read that angle. Good food for thought! It would certainly rectify the conflict between the amendment text and urban areas' need for tighter security than rural areas.

What say you?

some might argue that high crime rates, millions living in poverty, high unemployment amongst visible minorities, etc etc are all signs of the results of a tryrannical, uncaring governemnt that uses the economy to wage war on the poor

as such should they be able to bear arms in defence of such, and of course the rich in their gated condos would want to arm themselves against the inevitable back lash from the poor as they seek to fight tyranny

all fanciful and far fetched i know, i just mean to state that one man's definition of "tyrannical domestic government" is vastly different from anothers, i highly doubt that tyranny even in it's purest form oppresses everyone - there will always be those stakeholders that stand to profit form the spoils

 

[Accountable]

some might argue that high crime rates, millions living in poverty, high unemployment amongst visible minorities, etc etc are all signs of the results of a tryrannical, uncaring governemnt that uses the economy to wage war on the poor

as such should they be able to bear arms in defence of such, and of course the rich in their gated condos would want to arm themselves against the inevitable back lash from the poor as they seek to fight tyranny

all fanciful and far fetched i know, i just mean to state that one man's definition of "tyrannical domestic government" is vastly different from anothers, i highly doubt that tyranny even in it's purest form oppresses everyone - there will always be those stakeholders that stand to profit form the spoils

What do you think about allowing the right to keep & bear arms, but not only for, um, civil defense (for want of a better phrase)? Meaning, you can keep your arms stored and ready for an attack or to rise up against tyranny, but not for strict self defense, such as against an intruder?

I know I'm fumbling with this because I'm one who believes that good fences make good neighbors and good weaponry makes for a more civil society. I'm just doing my best to put forward an angle I hadn't heard before, and the anti-gun crowd here either isn't vocal or isn't coherent, depending on the individual.

 

[porterjack]

What do you think about allowing the right to keep & bear arms, but not only for, um, civil defense (for want of a better phrase)? Meaning, you can keep your arms stored and ready for an attack or to rise up against tyranny, but not for strict self defense, such as against an intruder?

i think that is reasonable - i cannot see it working though, you will never convince the NRA that they cannot lay hands on their arms at a moment notice because they simply want to or feel it is their right - i don't think many of the hardened NRA supporters view the second amendment rights in the way you describe them here, mores the pity if however they could be persuaded to it woud be a good compromise

 

[Accountable]

i think that is reasonable - i cannot see it working though, you will never convince the NRA that they cannot lay hands on their arms at a moment notice because they simply want to or feel it is their right - i don't think many of the hardened NRA supporters view the second amendment rights in the way you describe them here, mores the pity if however they could be persuaded to it woud be a good compromise

I don't think it would work for the other side, either, because too many think they can legislate guns out of existence.

Hey! I think we've found something both sides can agree on -- disagreeing with this idea! :24:

 

[Joe the meek]

i think that is reasonable - i cannot see it working though, you will never convince the NRA that they cannot lay hands on their arms at a moment notice because they simply want to or feel it is their right - i don't think many of the hardened NRA supporters view the second amendment rights in the way you describe them here, mores the pity if however they could be persuaded to it woud be a good compromise

Here is another angle... The NRA really dosen't care about what civilians get to buy, but is really controlled by the gun manufacturers, because the "right to bear arms" is pretty big business.

I have the NRA call me all the time looking for money (made the mistake of sending a decent size donation years ago). The girl on the line was telling me about all the laws Obama was proposing to take away my rights. I asked the girl what was the last law Obama passed that "took away my rights" and she put me on hold, 15 mintues later they hung up on me.

 

[Francis]

Posted by a family member:

What if, mandatorily, a tiny digital camera was placed inside all guns, which took pictures of the shooter and what they're shooting every time they took a shot. These pictures would immediately be sent to the nearest police station. A designated person in the police station could monitor any pictures that come in and could determine if they are hunting, shooting targets, or committing murder. Then people would still get their damn guns, but would be completely and immediately accountable for their gun use, thereby preventing many gun deaths and stopping murderers.

How would it prevent a gun death or murderers from using a gun ?

You can legally own a gun and still kill someone.. Once they are dead, you can't bring them back to life.. The camera will not tell you who shot them if it's inside the gun only who you shot. It could well be any one else at the end of the gun shooting..

Besides a camera has no judgment and could well be more of a problem as an accidental death could be perceived as a murder when it is not..

 

[Accountable]

How would it prevent a gun death or murderers from using a gun ?

You can legally own a gun and still kill someone.. Once they are dead, you can't bring them back to life.. The camera will not tell you who shot them if it's inside the gun only who you shot. It could well be any one else at the end of the gun shooting..

Besides a camera has no judgment and could well be more of a problem as an accidental death could be perceived as a murder when it is not..

You missed the part where she wrote that the camera would take picture of both the shooter and what he's shooting at. I think her rationale is that some people will be more reluctant if they know they're being recorded.

 

[The Man]

Fingernail polish over the cameras for a crime spree.
Also extreme cost added to the purchase price.
IMO we need to concentrate more on value teaching in regard to human life.
When someone decides to kill...the gun is just the tool..as said there are hundreds of ways to kill a person...a firearm is just convenient.

 

[porterjack]

You missed the part where she wrote that the camera would take picture of both the shooter and what he's shooting at. I think her rationale is that some people will be more reluctant if they know they're being recorded.

cctv never stopped anyone from committing crime, the camera on the scope can always be tampered with

 

[Francis]

You missed the part where she wrote that the camera would take picture of both the shooter and what he's shooting at. I think her rationale is that some people will be more reluctant if they know they're being recorded.

Why I still believe using Hand Recognition ( like a digital fingerprint ) would be the best method.. I believe someone already said the NRA refused such method saying it could be not work and allow the gun to fire if required.. The same could be said if the gun malfunctions but no one cares about that point..

That way if a gun was stolen it would be totally useless to anyone..

But who cares now that guns can be 3D printed anyway.. Print shoot and melt it down right..

 

[The Man]

People use gloves in freezing weather while hunting.

 

[Francis]

People use gloves in freezing weather while hunting.

Can you not think of a colder place than Canada for winter hunting..:24: I know many hunters who gladly take off that glove at minus 55 to pull that hair trigger to make sure they get that exact shot..

There is ALWAYS a reason.