American Gun Control

[LDSman]

LDS Man, seriously, this talk of needing a gun to prevent any sort of violence is downright creepy. Why does it have to be the answer to everything?

Not sure where I said that. Guns are versatile items in the right hands. Not necessarily needed for every issue.

We never wanted a national gun registry. President Obama's attempt at a gun control law did not have that. In fact, it had a law that would prevent it.

An interesting poll set of poll results dispute that as do the states that register "assault weapons." In some cases, its about the incremental increase to a full ban.
https://www.northwestfirearms.com/t...mocrats-support-national-gun-registry.203469/

In the example you made about the guy stalking a woman, wouldn't it be better to make sure the stalker did not have a gun? (Yeah, sure, you'll say criminals will get it anyway, but if we just made them harder to get, they'd be harder to get!)

You're assuming he shot her rather than beat or stabbed her to death. Criminals would still have access to guns while the law abiding would not. I have a huge problem with that.

Democrats DO NOT want to outlaw guns. Here's what we want:

Quotes from various dems. Some still in office.
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-l...e-quotes-from-anti-gun-leaders-say-otherwise/

1. Closing of gun show loopholes.

As implied, its mostly a myth. http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/22/ccw-weekend-the-myth-of-the-gun-show-loophole/

2. For those who desire to gain a carry permit, psychiatric evaluation, training classes, and classes on gun safety, including annual correspondence courses. Special variants for concealed weapons permits.

Evaluation based on what standards? You've called me creepy and others think I'm crazy to own a gun. Almost 20 years and I've never hurt anyone or even needed to pull it out visibly. What shrink will sign off on that. "Hmm, if this guy kills someone, I could get sued..." I don't object to training classes. I object to the antigun having a hand in it. Look at DC. Classes were set up to prevent people from people able to pass. Make them high school classes. Basics only. Correspondence courses? How would that work? How do you certify who did the course? Special variants? Like what? Sounds like a way to be more complicated.

3. Bans on high-caliber firearms and magazines. (Military grade rifles are NOT necessary for any civilian use.)

Define high caliber. Most deaths don't use high caliber weapons. Same with magazines. Simply a way to show "I'm doing SOMETHING! Reelect me!!"

4. Stricter penalties for gun dealers who violate existing rules.

Do you have any idea what the penalties are already? Most of the gun dealers that get in trouble with the ATF do so over paperwork being wrong not that they are selling illegally.

5. Federal laws prohibiting those with a history of domestic violence from owning firearms.

Convictions for DV already apply.

Is that too much to ask?

Yes. What do gun owners get out of this?

Reading your source, I'm just going to dismiss it, instead of going through a point by point argument as to why any person with a semblance of rationality would use it as a source, cause it's from the Federalist. Not the most unbiased dispenser of truth, I'd say.

Suit yourself. There is plenty out there about what the CDC was doing and why it was wrong.

Good read about the NRA and sound science.

I don't object to digitizing some of the information as long as it isn't online or accessible to the public in anyway or to more research provided it isn't biased and has good methodology and repeatable results.

 

[Auraninja]

There are a few problems I have with lax gun control laws.

1. There needs to be accountability for gun deaths. The "guns don't kill people" motto is a weird mentality, which I will get to in a bit. For every mass shooting, there has to be responsible actions, and so far, no serious actions have been taking. You look at gun deaths in the United States versus anywhere else in the world, and you can see a clear distinction. If something is broken, fix it. There needs to be limits to the second amendment, just like the first amendment.
2. There is a thin wall to break in order to commit a gun crime. If an insane person walks into a school with a concealed handgun, how long until he commits a crime? He isn’t if he is carrying a concealed handgun in a designated place. I get tired of the gun-free zone argument because it doesn’t keep that in mind. Guns should be stricter to own, and if we want to make sure they are in the right hands, then we need to make sure they don’t get into the hands of the decrepit mindset.
3. Lastly, there is the mentality. There is a disturbing mentality amongst “second amends rights owners”. First, there is an obsession on how absolute the second amendment is. Second, many people say that people should be able to hold firearms against tyrannical government, which is domestic terrorism, and last, and certainly not least, there are powerful lobbyers that will not listen to any reason accept to profit on gun sales. Wayne LaPierre is a primary example of this.

 

[bobjr]

Reminder that the Federalist ran a "At least the kids were killed in Church, the best place to be killed", so it's fair to see where they stand on gun control vs. children deaths.

 

[1rkhachatryan]

Ah, but I did respond so I wasn't ignoring you. The rant about future votes has nothing to do with the current gun control debate.



Again? There are any number of listed self defense incidents (some made the news) inside the home and out. Its not a zero sum game though. "X number of people need to die in DGU to equal those that are killed by criminal use." Edit: To clarify, DGU does not need to include a death. I'v seen some allusions to that on the gun control end of things. End edit. Many criminals will run if the victim is armed.
I think you misquoted though since that's about how children die in other ways.

Edit:
Interesting that people want to complain about the NRA and their money but don't seem to object to Bloomberg and his $50 million for his groups. A database for gun owners? Heck no. The last time the antigun got ahold of a gun owners list, they released it to the public because "people have a right to know who has a gun." Add that to the gun owner death threats and that's bad news.

Part of the issue is those bills would do nothing to affect the crime its being passed for. "More background checks!! Dude killed his mom and stole her guns. Or the air force failed to enter the data into the system so the background check won't show anything. Waiting periods! The guy had multiple firearms already, the waiting period wouldn't have stopped him but it would affect the person trying to buy a handgun due to her abusive ex stalking her and threatening to kill her. Which he did because she had to wait a week.

Who?? Listen I'm against any party being able to buy politicians, I think if you took the money out of politics, you'd have a much better system.

https://youtu.be/_ECYMvjU52E?t=371, this is more so what I am talking about in terms of the registry, that's ridiculous. I'm sorry but there should absolutely be a database where the government/law enforcement can keep track of everyone who owns a gun. If you got your guns legally and the right way, there should be no objection to this. Hell it should realistically make it easier for someone who wants a gun and has passed the necessary stuff in the past to get one since they'll have a profile with all their info and passing of background checks, police reports etc etc...and considering the reason most people get a gun is to "defend themselves", they shouldn't really have a problem with people knowing they own a gun as most of the time they aren't shy about that info and really if someone knows you have a gun, the chances of them trying to attack that person would probably go down. Like I'm not about to go after someone that has a gun, that's ridiculous.

I'm sorry but there should definitely be some laws about guns, like a limit on the number of guns someone has and training courses/more thorough background/mental evaluations. The thing that is crazy to me is that the only people who should have a problem with laws like this are the people who wouldn't be able to pass them and damn sure shouldn't have a weapon. Gun owners who did everything the right way and are responsible gun owners who use them for the right reasons should be all for better gun laws as they only aim to make them look better.

LDS Man, seriously, this talk of needing a gun to prevent any sort of violence is downright creepy. Why does it have to be the answer to everything?

We never wanted a national gun registry. President Obama's attempt at a gun control law did not have that. In fact, it had a law that would prevent it.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/01/nra-misfires-on-federal-gun-registry/

See?

In the example you made about the guy stalking a woman, wouldn't it be better to make sure the stalker did not have a gun? (Yeah, sure, you'll say criminals will get it anyway, but if we just made them harder to get, they'd be harder to get!)


Democrats DO NOT want to outlaw guns. Here's what we want:

1. Closing of gun show loopholes.

2. For those who desire to gain a carry permit, psychiatric evaluation, training classes, and classes on gun safety, including annual correspondence courses. Special variants for concealed weapons permits.

3. Bans on high-caliber firearms and magazines. (Military grade rifles are NOT necessary for any civilian use.)

4. Stricter penalties for gun dealers who violate existing rules.

5. Federal laws prohibiting those with a history of domestic violence from owning firearms.

Is that too much to ask?

Edit: 1rkhachatrya, I'm sorry you have such a dim view of humanity (even though there are times I agree) but remember, the same used to be thought about the Tobacco Lobby. Everyone thought it was also unbeatable and invincible. Then came one lone employee who decided he'd had enough...

It's not a dim view, it's reality, there's been SO MANY times that the republican's could of come together and fixed it instead we get two of them putting out tweets saying our thoughts are with everyone effected and the rest whistle and say what mass shooting, we didn't see anything and then two days later it's forgotten until the next one where we rinse and repeat.

 

[LDSman]

There are a few problems I have with lax gun control laws.

Which of the thousands of gun laws are lax?

1. There needs to be accountability for gun deaths. The "guns don't kill people" motto is a weird mentality, which I will get to in a bit.

The thing is, there are millions of gun owners, yet gun deaths are under 35,000 people. 2/3rds were suicides. Guns don't kill people. If they did, the numbers would be vastly different and largely self solving.

For every mass shooting, there has to be responsible actions, and so far, no serious actions have been taking.

Serious and responsible are two different things. Most of the action the gun control groups want wouldn't have done anything to stop what happened.

You look at gun deaths in the United States versus anywhere else in the world, and you can see a clear distinction.

That's one of those things where picking what numbers you use changes the debate. Gun deaths vs total homicides kind of thing. Western countries vs whoever.

If something is broken, fix it. There needs to be limits to the second amendment, just like the first amendment.

1. The 2nd already has lots of restrictions unlike the first.

2. There is a thin wall to break in order to commit a gun crime. If an insane person walks into a school with a concealed handgun, how long until he commits a crime? He isn’t if he is carrying a concealed handgun in a designated place.

Paper thin in some areas. Simply owning a small item can get you in trouble. Not sure about the rest? If he's crazy, he won't care about where he is.

I get tired of the gun-free zone argument because it doesn’t keep that in mind. Guns should be stricter to own, and if we want to make sure they are in the right hands, then we need to make sure they don’t get into the hands of the decrepit mindset.

Define "right hands". Some say politically right hands, others say not (skin color) hands.

3. Lastly, there is the mentality. There is a disturbing mentality amongst “second amends rights owners”. First, there is an obsession on how absolute the second amendment is. Second, many people say that people should be able to hold firearms against tyrannical government, which is domestic terrorism,

That's not domestic terrorism. Attacking people is. Being ready to defend against a theoretical tyranny is not. See the difference? It's only disturbing based on how the media frames the argument. No one objects if you stockpile stuff in case of major natural disaster but say "gov't" and you get painted as a paranoid loon.

and last, and certainly not least, there are powerful lobbyers that will not listen to any reason accept to profit on gun sales. Wayne LaPierre is a primary example of this.

I'd like to see how much he made off of gun sales.

 

[chess-z]

I'd like to see how much he made off of gun sales.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danbig...pierre-gets-paid-to-defend-guns/#28025e3a16d6

He was paid just over $1 million. Lapierre was second, pulling in $970,000 in reportable and estimated comp.

It's not directly off gun sales, no, but it's directly connected to gun sales.

 

[Auraninja]

Which of the thousands of gun laws are lax?

I don't know, check chess-z's link.

The thing is, there are millions of gun owners, yet gun deaths are under 35,000 people. 2/3rds were suicides. Guns don't kill people. If they did, the numbers would be vastly different and largely self solving.

There aren't a million people shooting around, but there are many, and that is a problem. Suicides are still a problem, and guns certainly help if they can pierce organs with lead.

Serious and responsible are two different things. Most of the action the gun control groups want wouldn't have done anything to stop what happened.

Except try to stop the problem from happening again.

That's one of those things where picking what numbers you use changes the debate. Gun deaths vs total homicides kind of thing. Western countries vs whoever.
1. The 2nd already has lots of restrictions unlike the first.

I can source that later if you want. Edit 2: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm

Paper thin in some areas. Simply owning a small item can get you in trouble. Not sure about the rest? If he's crazy, he won't care about where he is.

Crazy people aren't random. They can cause very deliberate actions, but not in the right mentality.

Define "right hands". Some say politically right hands, others say not (skin color) hands.

Someone who wouldn't go and shoot people. I think that is self explanatory.

That's not domestic terrorism. Attacking people is. Being ready to defend against a theoretical tyranny is not. See the difference? It's only disturbing based on how the media frames the argument. No one objects if you stockpile stuff in case of major natural disaster but say "gov't" and you get painted as a paranoid loon.

Threatening to shoot people in office is indicating violence.

I'd like to see how much he made off of gun sales.

A lot I'm sure for a powerful lobbying force. I can grab a source. Edit: Chess-z covered me there.

 

[bobjr]

Plus as been stated this isn't some "ban guns and it'll all work out" situation, it requires a lot of work, and banning assault rifles and handguns are just one of the steps.

A lot of it comes down to "Do you want to feel like you have more control of your life, or would you rather work to protect and help the lives of others?" I'm fine with things like shooting ranges where you could rent guns, but they could never leave the place even. It's just this is a problem that's gotten way out of hand, and every day more and more lives are lost because nothing is done about it.

 

[LDSman]

Reminder that the Federalist ran a "At least the kids were killed in Church, the best place to be killed", so it's fair to see where they stand on gun control vs. children deaths.

Is that what they really said or the standard warping of religious views?

Who?? Listen I'm against any party being able to buy politicians, I think if you took the money out of politics, you'd have a much better system.

Debatable. Money helps to convince politicians that a group of people are serious (put your money where your mouth is kind of deal). Is there any system that doesn't have lobbyists? How well do they work?

https://youtu.be/_ECYMvjU52E?t=371, this is more so what I am talking about in terms of the registry, that's ridiculous. I'm sorry but there should absolutely be a database where the government/law enforcement can keep track of everyone who owns a gun.

Why should I be tracked? I've done nothing wrong. How do I know that tomorrow, the government won't decide to start harassing all people who own a specific type of gun?

If you got your guns legally and the right way, there should be no objection to this.

Hey can I search your home and computer for stuff? If you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't object.

Hell it should realistically make it easier for someone who wants a gun and has passed the necessary stuff in the past to get one since they'll have a profile with all their info and passing of background checks, police reports etc etc...and considering the reason most people get a gun is to "defend themselves", they shouldn't really have a problem with people knowing they own a gun as most of the time they aren't shy about that info and really if someone knows you have a gun, the chances of them trying to attack that person would probably go down. Like I'm not about to go after someone that has a gun, that's ridiculous.

The problem is who knows what information. You know I have a gun but you don't know where I live or who I really am. A database has all the information and could be subject to freedom of information requests or hacking. You might not but others could. It just involves preplanning. Instead of a knife, I use a truck or I break in while you're out.

I'm sorry but there should definitely be some laws about guns, like a limit on the number of guns someone has and training courses/more thorough background/mental evaluations.

Why a limit? I'm restricted by biology to using one really well at a time or two rather badly at the same time. See my other response on why the other things are basically nonstarters.

The thing that is crazy to me is that the only people who should have a problem with laws like this are the people who wouldn't be able to pass them and damn sure shouldn't have a weapon.

I have a problem with the human element that has prejudged me for owning a gun and tries various things like "a history of violence" that includes grade school records. (back in the 80s. Little footnote buried in a bill. Bill got killed when that got pointed out.)

Gun owners who did everything the right way and are responsible gun owners who use them for the right reasons should be all for better gun laws as they only aim to make them look better.

Except anytime something happens, its lumped on all gun owners. These changes affect the good gun owners more than the bad.

It's not a dim view, it's reality, there's been SO MANY times that the republican's could of come together and fixed it instead we get two of them putting out tweets saying our thoughts are with everyone effected and the rest whistle and say what mass shooting, we didn't see anything and then two days later it's forgotten until the next one where we rinse and repeat.

Only because any changes proposed by the Rs don't fit what the Ds want. Since the Rs won't accept more restrictions, of course it's their fault.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danbig...pierre-gets-paid-to-defend-guns/#28025e3a16d6



It's not directly off gun sales, no, but it's directly connected to gun sales.

Not really. That could easily be from membership fees. And it's rather low considering how many guns are sold every year.

I don't know, check chess-z's link.


There aren't a million people shooting around, but there are many, and that is a problem. Suicides are still a problem, and guns certainly help if they can pierce organs with lead.

Since those people own guns and aren't running around shooting people, maybe the gun isn't the problem? Suicides are often a mental health issue and people commit suicide in any number or ways, some quite extreme.

Except try to stop the problem from happening again.

Again, the proposed solutions would not have affected what happened. In many cases, the system for reporting the mental health issues was broken. Try fixing what's already in place rather than adding to it.

I can source that later if you want. Edit 2: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm

Not sure what this is trying to say. It is a good example of limiting information by "industrialized countries."

Crazy people aren't random. They can cause very deliberate actions, but not in the right mentality.

Varies. Some are erratic, others aren't

Someone who wouldn't go and shoot people. I think that is self explanatory.

Yes but different people have different criteria. Its not self explanatory.

Threatening to shoot people in office is indicating violence.

Depends on things like context, ability and actual intent. If a child in Japan threatens the Pres while the Pres in the States, is that credible. If a person says "I'll shoot him if..." it different legally than "I'm going to DC tomorrow to kill ** and here's how I'm going to do it."

A lot I'm sure for a powerful lobbying force. I can grab a source. Edit: Chess-z covered me there.

Not impressed. If he's seeing profits from gun sales, he's not getting a lot.
https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-ca...gher-gun-control-laws.html/?ref=YF&yptr=yahoo
I think its more to do with how many people own guns. Large portion of the population.

Plus as been stated this isn't some "ban guns and it'll all work out" situation, it requires a lot of work, and banning assault rifles and handguns are just one of the steps.

And that's the problem. Banning firearms isn't the solution. Heck, it isn't even feasible. "assault rifles" is a nebolous term that can mean any rifle the user hates. Black, brown, with these features or those. Handguns are very easy to conceal and are usable by so many people for self defense. Are you willing to accept those injuries and deaths?

A lot of it comes down to "Do you want to feel like you have more control of your life, or would you rather work to protect and help the lives of others?"

It's not an either/or situation. The way to help others is to find out what drives the violence, drugs, poverty, mental illness, greed, etc, and work to eliminate that cause.

I'm fine with things like shooting ranges where you could rent guns, but they could never leave the place even.

I'm not. Guns aid people in self defense.

It's just this is a problem that's gotten way out of hand, and every day more and more lives are lost because nothing is done about it.

Except gun violence keeps falling while gun sales rise. Fix the broken healthcare system, fix the background check system. See what changes happen after that. Yall want immediate change that simply won't work.

Say you manage to ban guns. Then the gun owners refuse to turn them over, Now what?

 

[chess-z]

Not really. That could easily be from membership fees. And it's rather low considering how many guns are sold every year.

It's pretty clear he makes money from the guns industry.

 

[bobjr]

For every gun that aids in self defense way more are used to kill others or themselves. Plus it would be nice if we could get more research and an updated registry, but too bad the GOP doesn't want to change that.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/06/saints-first-baptist-church-murdered-god-answering-prayers/ Also here's the article. I didn't want to give them the click but okay.

Also my other option, gun tax. Want to own a gun? Gotta pay a tax for it. The tax can pay for victims of gun violence.

 

[Mordent99]

LDS Man, it's clear arguing with you is pointless, so this will be my last post here. I stand by my assertion that a gun is first and foremost a device designed to KILL than it is anything else.

 

[LDSman]

For every gun that aids in self defense way more are used to kill others or themselves.

I disagree and have already provided links as to why.

Plus it would be nice if we could get more research and an updated registry, but too bad the GOP doesn't want to change that.

I don't object to more research. I just don't trust the anti-gun people to run non biased studies. I object whole heartedly to a registry. I point to efforts to ban certain guns. A registry would only help that effort.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/06/saints-first-baptist-church-murdered-god-answering-prayers/ Also here's the article. I didn't want to give them the click but okay.

Okay, I get what he's saying but don't agree with the premise. Opinion is a Lutheran preacher.

Also my other option, gun tax. Want to own a gun? Gotta pay a tax for it. The tax can pay for victims of gun violence.

Yearly or one time tax? I object to taxing constitutional rights.
How would you find out how many guns a person owns? Its not a like a car which is harder to hide.

LDS Man, it's clear arguing with you is pointless, so this will be my last post here. I stand by my assertion that a gun is first and foremost a device designed to KILL than it is anything else.

Suit yourself. Millions of gun owners failed to kill anyone despite owning guns for decades.

 

[chess-z]

Suit yourself. Millions of gun owners failed to kill anyone despite owning guns for decades.

What did we do when a few terrorists killed thousands of people with planes? We made it harder to get on a plane, despite how millions of plane passengers fail to kill anyone by crashing planes. And guess what, it worked.

How would you find out how many guns a person owns? Its not a like a car which is harder to hide.

Gun registry.

I disagree and have already provided links as to why.

And I disputed your conclusion with the material in the source itself. It's not a good look.

Some guns should be banned. What a dusty document written when guns could only hold one round and took an eon to reload says on the matter is hardly relevant to our modern paradigm.

 

[lemoncatpower]

Taking away something from someone that they believe, oddly enough, is their right to have is always hard. it's weird that people say it's their right to own some weapon that they didn't create, isn't natural, can kill anyone, for a perceived notion that they need to "protect" themselves from everyone around them, including the government. How do you have a right to something you couldn't possibly create on your own and does nothing in the way of protection on a daily basis?

Just setting a society up like that, one that doesn't trust each other or the government to the point they HAVE to have guns, just seems like a mistake in itself. This is passing police duties onto citizens, assuming they all have the same sense of justice... when in fact that's not how it goes what so ever. There is usually a point to regulating an item that is involved with many deaths...

 

[bobjr]

I'm pretty sure more guns are stolen each year than used for self-defense. Especially when a lot of "self-defense" could be things like Trayvon Martin, which really wasn't self defense at all.

Plus it seems to be you think everyone who wants better gun regulations are anti-gun. I own guns. I just want them to be safer and for there to be an actual solution and progress.

 

[LDSman]

What did we do when a few terrorists killed thousands of people with planes? We made it harder to get on a plane, despite how millions of plane passengers fail to kill anyone by crashing planes. And guess what, it worked.

That depends on who you talk to. Some people call TSA security theater. I would also add that plane hijackings are rare. Lot easier to search everyone going into an airport than the entire city. Lots easier to protect everyone on a plane in the air than a public building with multiple entrances.

Gun registry.

Based off the lack of response to the New York and Conn Safe Acts (less than 15% of gun owners registered, don't feel like looking it up), a gun registry won't work as most legal gun owners will ignore it and the people illegally possessing firearms are already breaking the law. So now what? If the majority of gun owners simply ignore a law they don't like, then what?

And I disputed your conclusion with the material in the source itself. It's not a good look.

The fact of DGU is not in dispute, only the number. Pro goes higher, anti goes lower. I'm more towards the middle of that myself.

Some guns should be banned. What a dusty document written when guns could only hold one round and took an eon to reload says on the matter is hardly relevant to our modern paradigm.

That's not actually true. https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/10/deconstructing-the-anti-gun-second-amendment-musket-myth/
Lists the various guns in production that demolish the "only applies to muskets" claim.

Taking away something from someone that they believe, oddly enough, is their right to have is always hard. it's weird that people say it's their right to own some weapon that they didn't create, isn't natural, can kill anyone, for a perceived notion that they need to "protect" themselves from everyone around them, including the government. How do you have a right to something you couldn't possibly create on your own and does nothing in the way of protection on a daily basis?

Let me point out the logic of this is really flawed! Did you create your car? It certainly isn't natural and can kill anyone. Why don't you take the bus or walk? Oh, it's safer to have your own car? You might want to move out to an area with a gov't you like?
Plenty of people make their own firearms and others carry daily in case they get attack due to their jobs or where they live.

Just setting a society up like that, one that doesn't trust each other or the government to the point they HAVE to have guns, just seems like a mistake in itself.

Do you lock your doors and windows? Leave cash laying on the car seat with open windows? I trust some of my neighbors, not all. The neighbor I trust today maybe replaced by one I don't. The gov't I like today, may become something I don't like in ten years. Look at how people hate Trump.

This is passing police duties onto citizens, assuming they all have the same sense of justice... when in fact that's not how it goes what so ever. There is usually a point to regulating an item that is involved with many deaths...

Being able to exercise self defense is not assuming police duties. Gun fatalities are not even in the top 15 causes of death in the US. 2/3rds are suicides that could be better served with mental health care. Hell, cars kill more people and they are designed to be safe. Guns out number cars by about 40 million. (brief google, could be off)

I'm pretty sure more guns are stolen each year than used for self-defense.

Debatable. DGU numbers are hard to define. Anti-gun numbers say yes. Pro gun numbers say no.

Especially when a lot of "self-defense" could be things like Trayvon Martin, which really wasn't self defense at all.

Except a court case and federal investigation ruled otherwise.

Plus it seems to be you think everyone who wants better gun regulations are anti-gun. I own guns. I just want them to be safer and for there to be an actual solution and progress.

When their proposed solutions include gun bans, then yes, I consider them anti-gun. I don't think your solutions would be beneficial or show progress.

 

[chess-z]

That's not actually true.

Congrats on being pedantic, but the spirit of the argument stands. The current interpretation of the 2nd amendment is definitely not what Madison intended, because how could he have known?

Except a court case and federal investigation ruled otherwise.

Systemic racism in action, baby.

 

[bobjr]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE84fH_Pc9c Here's the best video out there on the subject. It brings up how if you were Martin, how would you act if someone confronted you in the dark holding a gun? Who was defending themselves from who? They come to the conclusion that Zimmerman got charged with the wrong thing, since that would require several eyewitnesses.

Plus the one time a black man was shot by police while legally carrying a gun went national, gun groups were oddly silent. It's almost like there's an agenda there.

And if you think people who want to ban certain kinds of gun are just anti-gun in general, I just don't think you care if kids or innocent people are killed daily, you just either want to personally feel safer or more in control of your life. You care more about a piece of paper outdated by history hundreds of years ago than you care about the lives and well-being of others.

 

[lemoncatpower]

That depends on who you talk to. Some people call TSA security theater. I would also add that plane hijackings are rare. Lot easier to search everyone going into an airport than the entire city. Lots easier to protect everyone on a plane in the air than a public building with multiple entrances.



Based off the lack of response to the New York and Conn Safe Acts (less than 15% of gun owners registered, don't feel like looking it up), a gun registry won't work as most legal gun owners will ignore it and the people illegally possessing firearms are already breaking the law. So now what? If the majority of gun owners simply ignore a law they don't like, then what?

The fact of DGU is not in dispute, only the number. Pro goes higher, anti goes lower. I'm more towards the middle of that myself.

That's not actually true. https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/10/deconstructing-the-anti-gun-second-amendment-musket-myth/
Lists the various guns in production that demolish the "only applies to muskets" claim.

Let me point out the logic of this is really flawed! Did you create your car? It certainly isn't natural and can kill anyone. Why don't you take the bus or walk? Oh, it's safer to have your own car? You might want to move out to an area with a gov't you like?
Plenty of people make their own firearms and others carry daily in case they get attack due to their jobs or where they live.


Do you lock your doors and windows? Leave cash laying on the car seat with open windows? I trust some of my neighbors, not all. The neighbor I trust today maybe replaced by one I don't. The gov't I like today, may become something I don't like in ten years. Look at how people hate Trump.

Being able to exercise self defense is not assuming police duties. Gun fatalities are not even in the top 15 causes of death in the US. 2/3rds are suicides that could be better served with mental health care. Hell, cars kill more people and they are designed to be safe. Guns out number cars by about 40 million. (brief google, could be off)


Debatable. DGU numbers are hard to define. Anti-gun numbers say yes. Pro gun numbers say no.

Except a court case and federal investigation ruled otherwise.

When their proposed solutions include gun bans, then yes, I consider them anti-gun. I don't think your solutions would be beneficial or show progress.

So what is your solution to all the deaths? Besides telling everyone else how wrong you think they are, have you offered anything to the table? Even a certain course of action would be better, because just denying what anyone else says and then offering no other way is very insufficient.

Also I don't have a right to my vehicle, I earned the privilege by taking a driver's course and having a beginner's license for 9 months.