What gun control do you support?

[Capster78]

I don't worry about being a victim because I am well trained to deal with it

I don't worry about driving down the highway every day for 25 years but I wear my seatbelt

I don't worry about my house catching fire but I have insurance, an alarm and fire prevention equipment

you are fearful and project your fear onto others.

Logically, nothing you said made any sense. Passing a law to regulate firearms is not fear from firearms themselves, but fear from people who are not responsible owners. However, owning a firearm is fear of violence being enacted on you.

 

[BretJ]

No, scared people think its better to have a gun and not need it. People who want to sell you a gun tell you that its better to have a gun an not need it. Smart people know the odds are distant and smart people do not live in areas where it is likely to happen.

My wife and son are both alive and well because she had a gun. I suppose you would have prefered she had been raped/murdered vice having a gun. She should have just taken one for the team right? Her death would have been irrelevant if only 1 thug could have been saved.

Do you refuse to own a fire extinguisher because the chances of ever needing it are so slim? By God, you are not afraid of fire are you.
If the odds of ever having to use a firearm to defend yourself from a criminal are so slim, why worry about my legally owned firearms. You are more likely to get taken out by a someone driving under the influence. So why not channel your Prohibitionist views towards something which would save more lives and be more beneficial.....

 

[TurtleDude]

Logically, nothing you said made any sense. Passing a law to regulate firearms is not fear from firearms themselves, but fear from people who are not responsible owners. However, owning a firearm is fear of violence being enacted on you.

that is just plain moronic and demonstrates how little you understand about gun owners and gun ownership

it is you who operate out of fear. you want to harass honest people purportedly because you fear dishonest ones

 

[Crimefree]

Yes, until the constitution is amended, the right of the people to keep and bear arms may not be repealed.

What is an inalienable right?

 

[Goshin]

My wife and son are both alive and well because she had a gun. I suppose you would have prefered she had been raped/murdered vice having a gun. She should have just taken one for the team right? Her death would have been irrelevant if only 1 thug could have been saved.

Do you refuse to own a fire extinguisher because the chances of ever needing it are so slim? By God, you are not afraid of fire are you.
If the odds of ever having to use a firearm to defend yourself from a criminal are so slim, why worry about my legally owned firearms. You are more likely to get taken out by a someone driving under the influence. So why not channel your Prohibitionist views towards something which would save more lives and be more beneficial.....

Like lowering the speed limit to 35 nationwide, and putting governors on all vehicles to prevent them going faster.

It would save thousands of lives... but we aren't going to do that are we? Because it would cost money in our distribution system of goods, and most people wouldn't like it.

It's never really about public safety... it's always about control.

 

[Capster78]

uh and most people don't have house fires or floods or high speed crashes so they should jettison costly fire, flood and auto insurance

Insurance is the biggest ripoff in american history. It is basically legal robbery. And yes, if you live in an area that does not flood, never has much inclimate weather.. you should drop flood insurance. Auto insurance is the worst of all insurances. For the amount of insurance I pay for in 10 years I could but an entirely new car. I have never been in an accident and most people who drive never recoup that money. Insurance companies make money for a reason, because your loosing it.

 

[TurtleDude]

My wife and son are both alive and well because she had a gun. I suppose you would have prefered she had been raped/murdered vice having a gun. She should have just taken one for the team right? Her death would have been irrelevant if only 1 thug could have been saved.

Do you refuse to own a fire extinguisher because the chances of ever needing it are so slim? By God, you are not afraid of fire are you.
If the odds of ever having to use a firearm to defend yourself from a criminal are so slim, why worry about my legally owned firearms. You are more likely to get taken out by a someone driving under the influence. So why not channel your Prohibitionist views towards something which would save more lives and be more beneficial.....

If one of your family members is murdered because someone like Capster passed a law preventing them from being able to be armed your first duty as a family member is to kill the murderer if you catch him or make sure he is taken out by the authorities. Then your next duty is to deal with the person who aided and abetted the murderer and that is the person who caused your loved one to be defenseless.

 

[Federalist]

What is an inalienable right?

An inalienable right is on that may not be taken or given away.

 

[TurtleDude]

Insurance is the biggest ripoff in american history. It is basically legal robbery. And yes, if you live in an area that does not flood, never has much inclimate weather.. you should drop flood insurance. Auto insurance is the worst of all insurances. For the amount of insurance I pay for in 10 years I could but an entirely new car. I have never been in an accident and most people who drive never recoup that money. Insurance companies make money for a reason, because your loosing it.

LOL your posts are getting more moronic by the minute.

 

[Capster78]

My wife and son are both alive and well because she had a gun. I suppose you would have prefered she had been raped/murdered vice having a gun. She should have just taken one for the team right? Her death would have been irrelevant if only 1 thug could have been saved.

I don't know enough about your situation to comment on it. I am glad you and your wife survived the incident. I'll just leave it at that. And again, I never said in any of my posts I want to take away the gun that prevented that from occurring, All I ask is that you maintain that proficiency and actually increase your proficiency to do just that thru education and training. Also to make sure that you, the responsible gun owner, could not possibly be lumped into the large number of irresponsible owners. By proving that you are not part of the problem you also protect yourself from being accused of being part of the problem.

Do you refuse to own a fire extinguisher because the chances of ever needing it are so slim? By God, you are not afraid of fire are you.
If the odds of ever having to use a firearm to defend yourself from a criminal are so slim, why worry about my legally owned firearms. You are more likely to get taken out by a someone driving under the influence. So why not channel your Prohibitionist views towards something which would save more lives and be more beneficial.....

Well, I can't control fire. So yes, I will own a fire extiguisher. I can control where I live, where I go and how situationally aware I am about my surroundings that will reduce the risk of me being robbed to the point that carrying a weapon is simply a waste of energy.

 

[Crimefree]

Logically, nothing you said made any sense. Passing a law to regulate firearms is not fear from firearms themselves, but fear from people who are not responsible owners. However, owning a firearm is fear of violence being enacted on you.

What would taking out insurance be?

Passing a law to regulate firearms without offering proof of any reason or claiming a false reason is unjust deprivation of property, safety and freedom. It is also inhuman and OPPRESSIVE.

What proof do you have?

Passing such a law without proof is a fear of firearms but more interestingly selfishness in the extreme in being willing to deliberately endanger others to falsely feel safe.

 

[Capster78]

LOL your posts are getting more moronic by the minute.

LOL your posts are becoming more ironic by the minute. I can do that too.

 

[BretJ]

Logically, nothing you said made any sense. Passing a law to regulate firearms is not fear from firearms themselves, but fear from people who are not responsible owners. However, owning a firearm is fear of violence being enacted on you.

So having a fire extinguisher is fear of fire. Having a first aid kit is fear of injury.

Not owning a firearm is fear of not being capable of handling it responsibly. Not owning a firearm is fear of failure.

I fear not being able to protect my family from fire. I fear not having the materials I need to handle a medical emergency. I fear not being able to fulfill my obligation as a husband and father to defend and take care of my family. I have several fire extinguishers, first aid/trauma kits and firearms. So I have taken care of all my potential fears as best as I can. I am capable of meeting my obligations and duties to the best of my ability. How about you?
Oh yeah, never mind, its easier for you to just ignore things and hope it happens to someone else. Plus you can just let someone meet your obligations and resposibilities for you yes?

 

[TurtleDude]

LOL your posts are becoming more ironic by the minute. I can do that too.

I see you are getting a lot of support for your idiotic desires to ruin the lives of many

and no one other than you thinks your proposals have any chance of actually decreasing crime

but given your posting history on this forum and your demonstrated fear of guns and hatred of gun owners, we all understand that your real goal is harassing honest gun owners rather than impeding criminals. do you mouth these fascist desires among other members of the military? I suspect you aren't serving with those who are combat veterans if you do

 

[Capster78]

If one of your family members is murdered because someone like Capster passed a law preventing them from being able to be armed your first duty as a family member is to kill the murderer if you catch him or make sure he is taken out by the authorities. Then your next duty is to deal with the person who aided and abetted the murderer and that is the person who caused your loved one to be defenseless.

Which would be the CEO of the company that made the weapon? The CEO of the company that made the bullets? oh no, if its a gun that killed you, go after the person that is trying to get the guns out of the hands of the people that will use them to kill you.

 

[Lutherf]

I will take my chances. I am not the type that believes in preparing for something where the odds of it of occurring are simply so far out that it could be considered a freak accident that it occurred. The chances of someone robbing me are very low based on where I live and the proper risk assessment I follow when I am out and about. In the very low chance that I am robbed, there is a very low chance the robber is going to kill me if I comply with his demands. Lets do some math here:

In my area there are apx 3 murders per year or 8.1 per 100,000 people.
In my area there are apx 78 robberis per year or 11 per 100,000 people.

The odds of me being robbed are apx .0001 percent or 1 in 9090 chance

to put that in perspective, that's about the same as:
Odds of winning the medal of honor while in the military
Odds of bowling a 300 game (non professional)
Odds of going to the hospital for an injury while shaving

I am not running around looking for a life to save, going to ask for my money back from the bowling ally because I did not bowl a 300 or wearing all sorts of protective gear with a medical kit nearby while I shave. Because its simply ridiculous to live life that way. That is also why I don't prepare for being robbed by someone.

The rate of murder in my area is apx 3 per year or 8.1 per 100,000 people. So that is about a .00008% chance or 1 in 12,345 chance which is about the same chance as:

Odds of running into someone speaking cherokee
Odds of winning an academy award
Odds of drowning

But I am not seriously thinking of taking a class so I can speak cherokee, going to store and buying a suit and preparing a speech for my academy award acceptance or call an ambulance and have it on standby every time I am going to go swimming. Because that would just be dumb...That is why I do not own a firearm.

Maybe I'm missing something here....

If the odds of running into a situation where a gun is a problem are so absurdly low then why do we need to restrict them? I mean that sure sounds like a solution in search of a problem.

 

[vesper]

According to a Gallup poll of Oct this year 13% support less restrictive or no gun control laws. 37% are happy with the current laws and 49% support more strict laws.

Anyway you look at that at least 86% of US citizens support gun control and just 13% possibly do not. What this also means is that a huge percentage of firearm owners support gun control.

Just assuming firearm owners want their rights and value their rights how do they intend to obtain these rights when gun control has a potential pool of +86% of the population to draw from? All gun control has to do is find what the majority want and will accept or can be convinced to accept. Sandy Hook pushed the more restrictive support up to 58% and brought in many new state laws as politicians became confident of public acceptance of new laws.

In a country with such a magnificent constitution and great beginning 86% of US citizens support gun control in one form or the other. What gun control do you support?

I think I know why there is an increase in people willing to neuter the 2nd Amendment. I believe like all things these days it's the media that has the greatest influence on people. It is no secret the media leans to the left of center. Television producers get their feed from the AP. Television producers also have ties with "non-profit" organizations which all have an agenda and will supply the producer with ready script for the empty headed newscaster to read to the viewers. If Congress is considering cutting welfare programs inevitably they will search high and low for stories of people looking for food in dumpsters. It is how they got a good number in the country to believe the polar bears were drowning at the North Pole. And it is the same way they are trying to push for gun control by the news they choose that supports their agendas. The producers choose the pieces then all the stations parrot the same story.

Here is a video of a fluff piece on Conan O'Brien's show that makes the case.



It's damn scary to me that there are those so willing to give up their rights in exchange for false security. It's damn scary that the news media is nothing more than a propaganda machine.

 

[BretJ]

Insurance is the biggest ripoff in american history. It is basically legal robbery. And yes, if you live in an area that does not flood, never has much inclimate weather.. you should drop flood insurance. Auto insurance is the worst of all insurances. For the amount of insurance I pay for in 10 years I could but an entirely new car. I have never been in an accident and most people who drive never recoup that money. Insurance companies make money for a reason, because your loosing it.

Until you need it to pay someone's medical bill or replace their destroyed property.

 

[TurtleDude]

Which would be the CEO of the company that made the weapon? The CEO of the company that made the bullets? oh no, if its a gun that killed you, go after the person that is trying to get the guns out of the hands of the people that will use them to kill you.

of course not-there intent wasn't to harm me or mine

your intent is to harm honest people and that makes you a legitimate and primary target if someone is harmed

 

[Capster78]

I see you are getting a lot of support for your idiotic desires to ruin the lives of many

and no one other than you thinks your proposals have any chance of actually decreasing crime

but given your posting history on this forum and your demonstrated fear of guns and hatred of gun owners, we all understand that your real goal is harassing honest gun owners rather than impeding criminals. do you mouth these fascist desires among other members of the military? I suspect you aren't serving with those who are combat veterans if you do

Well it just makes sense that most people that would support my proposals just don't care enough to post. Most of them are watching TV, or out at a party, or out eating right now. They have little interest or desire to get involved in our discussion. However, the extreme end of the gun ownership crowd is certainly more likely to be on the internet, late at night posting long diatribes about how they want to kill anyone who thinks guns are bad.

 

[Capster78]

Until you need it to pay someone's medical bill or replace their destroyed property.

If they managed their money properly, they would save more money replacing it themselves.

 

[TurtleDude]

If they managed their money properly, they would save more money replacing it themselves.

That's really moronic

we get it you hate insurance companies almost as much as you hate gun owners

 

[Capster78]

Maybe I'm missing something here....

If the odds of running into a situation where a gun is a problem are so absurdly low then why do we need to restrict them? I mean that sure sounds like a solution in search of a problem.

Because regulating the problem does not effect legal ownership, but may save a few lives. It also exonerates legal owners from any responsibility for guns that make it into the illegal market from the legal market.

 

[Capster78]

That's really moronic

we get it you hate insurance companies almost as much as you hate gun owners

Actually, I don't hate gun owners. But I do hate insurance companies.

 

[Jerry]

According to a Gallup poll of Oct this year 13% support less restrictive or no gun control laws. 37% are happy with the current laws and 49% support more strict laws.

Anyway you look at that at least 86% of US citizens support gun control and just 13% possibly do not. What this also means is that a huge percentage of firearm owners support gun control.

Just assuming firearm owners want their rights and value their rights how do they intend to obtain these rights when gun control has a potential pool of +86% of the population to draw from? All gun control has to do is find what the majority want and will accept or can be convinced to accept. Sandy Hook pushed the more restrictive support up to 58% and brought in many new state laws as politicians became confident of public acceptance of new laws.

In a country with such a magnificent constitution and great beginning 86% of US citizens support gun control in one form or the other. What gun control do you support?

You didn't source your data. /fail This is a debate site, not a political opinion sounding board. You are expected to source every claim you make.