Why is it?

[opendebate]

..

I live in Florida so I am not sure what that is intended to imply.

It was kind of a joke

The issue is when the solutions revolve around assuming everyone is a potential mass shooter and treating them that way.

My opinion, statistically supported, is that most gun owner are very responsible with them. It does stink to have the rights of the many infringed upon because of the behaviors or a few however, when we are talking about life or death I think that changes everything. A few compromises that would help save lives is a reasonable thing to require under those circumstances IMO

 

[BretJ]

It was kind of a joke


My opinion, statistically supported, is that most gun owner are very responsible with them. It does stink to have the rights of the many infringed upon because of the behaviors or a few however, when we are talking about life or death I think that changes everything. A few compromises that would help save lives is a reasonable thing to require under those circumstances IMO

That becomes a dangerous thought process. Again, I point to Prohibition as an example. The intent was well meaning and I am sure everyone involved in its passage wanted to do the right thing all in the name of saving lives and protecting society. Why do people look towards Prohibition as a ridiculous idea yet have no issues taking the very same thought process/mindset and applying it to firearms?

While a bit extreme, the same thought process led to interning Japanese Americans during WWII. After all, it was for their own safety and intended to save lives. Stop and Frisk laws? Profiling? Questioning someone wearing a hoodie? All restrictions on a majority because of a small minority in the name of saving lives. Seems reasonable and rational common sense to everyone who approves of those infringements.

The laws are already there to fix the problem for the most part. Enforce them. Hold those responsible for enforcing them responsible for not doing so.

As I have said in the past, it is always easier to infringe upon others freedoms and liberties if you do not personally choose to exercise them.

 

[CRUE CAB]

It was kind of a joke


My opinion, statistically supported, is that most gun owner are very responsible with them. It does stink to have the rights of the many infringed upon because of the behaviors or a few however, when we are talking about life or death I think that changes everything. A few compromises that would help save lives is a reasonable thing to require under those circumstances IMO

Many people are irresponsible with a car. Do we revoke all drivers licenses?

 

[CRUE CAB]

I agree with you on principle if that is the only risk. Robbery does carry a "being shot" sentence if it involves a threat of bodily harm to me or my family in order to rob me....I am not a mind reader. If you are in my home, or present a weapon or threat in order to rob me, of course I will assume the worst and justifiably so. A co-workers family was murdered by some folks who thought they had more money than what they really did. From what I was told, they were passive and compliant.

Yet still, the libs will tell you its so isolated that it will never happen to them. Till it does.

 

[Ikari]

My opinion, statistically supported, is that most gun owner are very responsible with them. It does stink to have the rights of the many infringed upon because of the behaviors or a few however, when we are talking about life or death I think that changes everything. A few compromises that would help save lives is a reasonable thing to require under those circumstances IMO

Over 30,000 people die each year because of cars. More than the homicides by guns. I know, I know "cars aren't created to kill, they're just high momentum objects that have the potential to kill if people are not careful". But your argument is purely on life/death notes and if that's all you care about then you should care about cars more than guns.

 

[opendebate]

That becomes a dangerous thought process. Again, I point to Prohibition as an example. The intent was well meaning and I am sure everyone involved in its passage wanted to do the right thing all in the name of saving lives and protecting society. Why do people look towards Prohibition as a ridiculous idea yet have no issues taking the very same thought process/mindset and applying it to firearms?

While a bit extreme, the same thought process led to interning Japanese Americans during WWII. After all, it was for their own safety and intended to save lives. Stop and Frisk laws? Profiling? Questioning someone wearing a hoodie? All restrictions on a majority because of a small minority in the name of saving lives. Seems reasonable and rational common sense to everyone who approves of those infringements.

The laws are already there to fix the problem for the most part. Enforce them. Hold those responsible for enforcing them responsible for not doing so.

As I have said in the past, it is always easier to infringe upon others freedoms and liberties if you do not personally choose to exercise them.

Here is the bottom line. Our priorities are different. You want to protect your guns regardless of the cost in individual lives and I don' think it is worth it. I don't know if more gun control laws would save lives, I have yet to be convinced, but if it was proven (well enough, if there was enough evidence) to be effective in saving lives I would give up rights to accomplish that and I think most gun owners would not. So what happens is an endless shoving contest because it boils down to values. I value innocent lives more than your or anybody elses freedom to accumulate an arsenal of your choosing. If you do not fall within this type of progun advocacy I certainly won't lump you in, I realize not everyone who supports gun rights thinks that way, but those who are very vocal and angry certainly do.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Here is the bottom line. Our priorities are different. You want to protect your guns regardless of the cost in individual lives and I don' think it is worth it. I don't know if more gun control laws would save lives, I have yet to be convinced, but if it was proven (well enough, if there was enough evidence) to be effective in saving lives I would give up rights to accomplish that and I think most gun owners would not. So what happens is an endless shoving contest because it boils down to values. I value innocent lives more than your or anybody elses freedom to accumulate an arsenal of your choosing. If you do not fall within this type of progun advocacy I certainly won't lump you in, I realize not everyone who supports gun rights thinks that way, but those who are very vocal and angry certainly do.

No, I want to protect gun rights to save individual lives.
Is a person breaking into your home "innocent".
And being vocal about it, is not being angry. That is just a projection that you throw probably on every gun owner.

 

[BretJ]

Here is the bottom line. Our priorities are different. You want to protect your guns regardless of the cost in individual lives and I don' think it is worth it. I don't know if more gun control laws would save lives, I have yet to be convinced, but if it was proven (well enough, if there was enough evidence) to be effective in saving lives I would give up rights to accomplish that and I think most gun owners would not. So what happens is an endless shoving contest because it boils down to values. I value innocent lives more than your or anybody elses freedom to accumulate an arsenal of your choosing. If you do not fall within this type of progun advocacy I certainly won't lump you in, I realize not everyone who supports gun rights thinks that way, but those who are very vocal and angry certainly do.

Nope. I have no issues with the thug on thug or suicides. Those are the majority of deaths and should be solved by approaching the root cause. Not by penalizing everyone who wears a "hoodie" (owns a gun). I have issues with people telling me that because I own a firearm I am not to be trusted to act responsibly with it because a fraction of a fraction of people cannot. I have issues with individuals with no practical knowledge of firearms telling me what I need and do not need based upon how they feel. It is always easier to give up other peoples rights....

Let me pose this question, alcoholics are a large segment of suicides/DUIs/violence/rapes etc. Would you feel it is reasonable to require that a database be created which would be used to validate ones ability to purchase alcohol? Every purchase, be it bar, restaurant or package store, would require you be checked against a database to determine if you are a potential risk? Alcohol purchases would be tracked in order to determine if you are a potential straw buyer. Amounts purchased would be regulated in order to prevent binge drinking and content of any beverage limited to 4% or so. If you have a drivers license, you would have an alcohol purchaser endorsement on your license and would be required to install a breathalyzer starting system. If lives saved is the ultimate goal of any regulation, if freedoms traded for lives is acceptable, these would be a no brainer and save many, many more lives. It would even reduce gun deaths by a huge amount with or without further gun control regulations.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

I value innocent lives more than your or anybody elses freedom to accumulate an arsenal of your choosing.

Are you saying that depriving innocent law abiding citizens of the right to self defence
will keep those who don't abide by the law, safe?

 

[AngryOldGuy]

alcohol purchaser endorsement

the 18th amendment was fulla fail, isn't it quaint that pot speed narcotics hallucinogens and an endless list of other assorted 'substances' are illegal but the ethanol molecule is a socially acceptable drug? guns drugs cars supertankers commercial passenger aircraft, all of it, are simply a matter of personal responsibility. No amount of legislation can guarantee that all people will behave in a responsible manner.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

they were passive and compliant.

I'd say that being 'passive and compliant' when your life is threatened is not the best course of action, personally I'd rather go out fighting like a rabid Dawg.
yanno like the folks in the Warsaw ghetto in April of 43? To bad it was too little too late but its always best to go out fighting it's less embarrassing that way :tongue4:

 

[Tigger]

Thing is, my wife is also a veteran, who honestly shot better than I did.

We are both tough people who would kill for each other, but only if absolutely necessary. I just don't see it as a realistic consideration, that someone would enter out house at night and have a reason to kill us, beyond defense of our "stuff." If it comes down to me taking a life or someone taking my stuff, hell take my television, I'll buy another one.

We are both, tough in the classic sense, but we are also realistic.

Yo have every right to feel that way. On the other hand, if someone comes I to my home uninvited and I have any say in the matter they are leaving in a black plastic bag. Regardless of whether they are there for me or my stuff.

 

[Thrilla]

Buddy my guess is that if yer weapon(s) were made illegal and you had to choose between prison or if you resisted death, you'd hand em over to the jackbooted thugs. The day of our disarmament is far closer than anyone can imagine.

If 20 years ago you'd told me we'd have socialized health care, proof that the IRS is being used to target an opposition party (and no one cares), the government completely disregarding the fourth amendment and wiretapping the entire citizenry (and again no buddy gives a ****) and a regime that seems hell bent on simultaneously hyper-inflating the currency and bankrupting the nation (and no one lifts a finger to stop it). I'd have thought you were crazy.

What in the blue blazes makes you think they can't ram a National Gun Registration bill up yer but? hah then anyone in possession of an unlicensed weapon becomes a felon unable to possess a weapon? har har har

not a chance i'd hand over my weapons.. and there's a very strong likelihood it would never come to a "prison or death" scenario.....noncompliance comes in many flavors.


....but I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

noncompliance

Yes I suppose there would be tens of millions of us that still possessed our weapons that couldn't be traced back to us. But we'd merely be a secretive outlaw minority?

 

[AngryOldGuy]

Consider this, today people that believe in the things that make up the teaparty platform
are derided by the administration & the lamestream media as crackpots or outright enemies of the state.

In far less than twenty years gun owners will be seen as a menace to public safety and be thought of as a danger to civil order.

They will knock at your door to confiscate your gun because your child mentioned it during a visit to the government doctor.

 

[TurtleDude]

Consider this, today people that believe in the things that make up the teaparty platform
are derided by the administration & the lamestream media as crackpots or outright enemies of the state.

In far less than twenty years gun owners will be seen as a menace to public safety and be thought of as a danger to civil order.

They will knock at your door to confiscate your gun because your child mentioned it during a visit to the government doctor.

well in 20 years I suspect my quality of life will be on the way out-might as well have some fun

 

[AngryOldGuy]

You plannin' on goin' down inna Blaze of Glory?

 

[TurtleDude]

You plannin' on goin' down inna Blaze of Glory?

He's a big gun banner from what I recall

 

[Starbuck]

Yo have every right to feel that way. On the other hand, if someone comes I to my home uninvited and I have any say in the matter they are leaving in a black plastic bag. Regardless of whether they are there for me or my stuff.

And you have every right to feel that way.

The great thing about liberty is the ability to follow ones own philosophy.

 

[Starbuck]

As a former LEO and military member I was relieved at the verdict. To each his own.

Naturally.

Agreed. This does not however make Florida overall a bad example. This was one case and in my humble, it was just politically motivated nonsense. As you say though that is another thread.

True and true.

I am not certain what that has to do with it?

For me, the murder rate in any particular city doesn't mean a whole lot.

I look at a city like Oakland, and understand that a lot of the murders in that town involve already acquainted parties. Similar to DC or Chicago, I don't feel wholly unsafe walking through the streets in those cities, any less so than I would in Boston or Topeka really.

Don't get me wrong, murder is a problem, but I'd imagine that there are less innocent bystanders than the media lets on.