"You don't have a clue. You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance."
Re: Possibly the most retarded anti-gun ad I've ever seen...
Automatic weapons are not "illegal", you just need a special permit to own. They do make it pretty time consuming and you really open yourself up to the government if you do get approved for a automatic weapons permit, but anyone can apply and deal with the bs.
Re: Possibly the most retarded anti-gun ad I've ever seen...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AwdGSX13
Automatic weapons are not "illegal", you just need a special permit to own. They do make it pretty time consuming and you really open yourself up to the government if you do get approved for a automatic weapons permit, but anyone can apply and deal with the bs.
Correct, the point I am trying to make is they are so tightly regulated and expensive now that vast majority of gun owners will never own one. Due to extreme regulations on them, it's extremely unlikely a child, irrational person, or even criminal will ever get their hands on one. They are effectively out of the hands of irresponsible/careless owners.
I certainly don't want to see "assault" weapons be made illegal. The problem I see is that they're inexpensive, and getting even cheaper. They are accessible to just about everyone. Most are accurate enough to hit a man sized target at 500 yards with the proper training. They are sensationalized in movies and video games and, with a full magazine, a person can fire off 30 rounds before a reload. I don't understand why background check requirement bills are receiving almost no conservative support?
Re: Possibly the most retarded anti-gun ad I've ever seen...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy1375
Correct, the point I am trying to make is they are so tightly regulated and expensive now that vast majority of gun owners will never own one. Due to extreme regulations on them, it's extremely unlikely a child, irrational person, or even criminal will ever get their hands on one. They are effectively out of the hands of irresponsible/careless owners.
I certainly don't want to see "assault" weapons be made illegal. The problem I see is that they're inexpensive, and getting even cheaper. They are accessible to just about everyone. Most are accurate enough to hit a man sized target at 500 yards with the proper training. They are sensationalized in movies and video games and, with a full magazine, a person can fire off 30 rounds before a reload. I don't understand why background check requirement bills are receiving almost no conservative support?
I can definitely agree that background checks need to be more detailed. Also I believe that anyone who is looking to buy a firearm should have to receive their firearm safety first. If you need it to hunt, then you should need it to buy as well.
The magazine issue is moot point, if you can't carry 30rd magazines then someone would just carry 10 / 10rd magazines. Sure they would have to reload more but with most weapons it can be done in a short amount of time.
I also think that even the sale of firearms from person to person should be regulated more. Because any Joe blow can go buy one from a buddy.
Re: Possibly the most retarded anti-gun ad I've ever seen...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AwdGSX13
I can definitely agree that background checks need to be more detailed. Also I believe that anyone who is looking to buy a firearm should have to receive their firearm safety first. If you need it to hunt, then you should need it to buy as well.
The magazine issue is moot point, if you can't carry 30rd magazines then someone would just carry 10 / 10rd magazines. Sure they would have to reload more but with most weapons it can be done in a short amount of time.
I also think that even the sale of firearms from person to person should be regulated more. Because any Joe blow can go buy one from a buddy.
I thought the same as you about the magazine size when I first heard about it. I'm not necessarily pro-smaller magazine, but I found some merit in the idea after thinking about it.
The reason I think there is something to the idea is because of the adrenaline factor. I still get a bit of a rush when firing a gun. I have to imagine that a person who is on an insane shooting spree is going to have shitloads of adrenaline coursing through their veins. Adrenaline makes precision movements hard. Unless a person has prepared and has the movement of removing and inserting a magazine down by rote, I would bet they are going to fumble it and leave a possible opening for kill or capture.
Other than that, we're pretty much on the same page.
"You don't have a clue. You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance."
Re: Possibly the most retarded anti-gun ad I've ever seen...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX
The problem with gun control on any level is that it only burdens and punishes the law abiding citizen. Criminals don't follow laws.
You want a safer neighborhood or a safer nation, promote the value of life.
A person is required to be trained how to drive before driving a vehicle. No training is required to own and shoot a gun. The training that is required to carry a weapon that can be potentially used to take the life of another human being is much less than is required to drive a car. From a public safety perspective, how does that make any sense.
As a society, we share common space. All commercial guns begin their life cycle being produced by law abiding citizens. Yet somehow, some law abiding citizens allow the guns to be put in the hands of criminals either through negligence or deliberately.
What does a world look like where there is no gun control whatsoever?
As far as promoting the value of life, do you mean that from a religious point of view or another way?
Re: Possibly the most retarded anti-gun ad I've ever seen...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy1375
A person is required to be trained how to drive before driving a vehicle. No training is required to own and shoot a gun. The training that is required to carry a weapon that can be potentially used to take the life of another human being is much less than is required to drive a car. From a public safety perspective, how does that make any sense.
As a society, we share common space. All commercial guns begin their life cycle being produced by law abiding citizens. Yet somehow, some law abiding citizens allow the guns to be put in the hands of criminals either through negligence or deliberately.
What does a world look like where there is no gun control whatsoever?
As far as promoting the value of life, do you mean that from a religious point of view or another way?
That's a straw-man argument. Even as well trained as we would like to think driver's are, more people die annually from cars than they do guns, by a long shot of 4 to 1 (no pun intended). And cars are much more indepth to operate than simple guns.
Top 7 Causes of Death Since 1 Jan, 2013
Cause.....................Annually.....To Date
Tobacco:................529,000.....1,074,090
Medical Errors:.........195,000........395,931
Alcohol Abuse:.........107,400........218,067
Vehicle Accidents:.....42,000..........85,277
Suicide:...................29,350..........59,593
Drug Abuse:.............25,500..........51,776 Firearm Homicide...10,828..........21,985 http://seggleston.com/1/wp-content/custom/ds_index.php
Real time for 2015: Abortion:................................34800 Heart Disease:.........................19011 Cancer:..................................18378 Tobacco:................................11154 Obesity:...................................9783
Medical Errors:...........................6692
Stroke:.....................................4109
Lower Respiratory Disease:...........4555
Accident (unintentional):..............4029
Hospital Associated Infection:.......3155
Alcohol:....................................3187
Diabetes:..................................2353
Alzheimer's Disease:....................2708
Influenza/Pneumonia:....................171
5Kidney Failure:..........................1363
Blood Infection:..........................1066
Suicide:....................................1259
Drunk Driving:............................1077
Unintentional Poisoning:...............1012
All Drug Abuse:............................797
Homicide:...................................535
Prescription Drug Overdose:...........478 Murder by gun:..........................366
Texting while Driving:....................191
Pedestrian:.................................159
Drowning:...................................125
Fire Related:...............................112
Malnutrition:................................88
Domestic Violence:.......................47
Smoking in Bed:...........................25
Falling out of Bed:........................18
Killed by Falling Tree:.....................4
Struck by Lightning:......................3
Mass Shooting:............................0
Spontaneous Combustion:..............0 http://www.romans322.com/daily-death...statistics.php
A world without gun control is what we have now for the most part. Statically its actually pretty good. At least not as bad as those with an agenda would like you to think.
Here's something to think about, imagine a world without police.
Not a religious issue and not bringing religion into it. I mean the value of life that revolves around right and wrong and your right to take a life. If children were brought up to see the value of life in general, there might be less murders.
"You don't have a clue. You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance."
When she get's bitchy, SPANK THAT ASS!
(#Y#)
Last edited by 1ViciousGSX; 01-12-2015 at 05:17 PM..
Re: Possibly the most retarded anti-gun ad I've ever seen...
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX
That's a straw-man argument. Even as well trained as we would like to think driver's are, more people die annually from cars than they do guns, by a long shot of 4 to 1 (no pun intended). And cars are much more indepth to operate than simple guns.
....
A world without gun control is what we have now for the most part. Statically its actually pretty good. At least not as bad as those with an agenda would like you to think.
Here's something to think about, imagine a world without police.
Not a religious issue and not bringing religion into it. I mean the value of life that revolves around right and wrong and your right to take a life. If children were brought up to see the value of life in general, there might be less murders.
Finally found some time to think about this and sit down to reply.
While guns are far simpler mechanically as well as operationally than cars, I would argue that they are just as complex when it comes to safety and awareness. In Minnesota, a three hour course is all that’s needed training wise to get a carry permit. It seems unrealistic to me to prepare any person to carry a gun and truly understand the situation they’re potentially preparing to deal with in that short of a time let alone be aware of how the situation might affect their own abilities once if they find themselves in that position. If the conservative argument is such that the best crime prevention is an armed public, why is there not rigorous training and testing required to ensure a civilian is trained well enough to actually do the deed if it comes to that?
I don't have data to back this up, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb here by saying that the number of guns being operated per day on an annual basis is several orders of magnitude smaller than the number of vehicles being operated. The 4-1 argument will likely look much different if considered based on deaths by a percentage of use.
Using the top 7 causes of death you provided, firearm homicide is the only event where another human being is actively violating another person’s right to exist without being injured and/or killed (I saw abortion in the other data set and I’m not going to touch that one.) Everything else is bad self care, negligence, or bad luck. It’s a different type of event to be actively killed by another person versus not. It’s more traumatic to survivors at the least.
I guess I just think more can be done to prevent things like school shootings and the like. If you leave your gun accessible and your child picks it up and shoots up the school, there should be some significant jail time for not properly locking your shit up and securing it. I would assume the authors of the 2nd amendment implied personal responsibility.
Not sure where you're coming from with a world without police. I'm not for that and not sure who is.
Last edited by jeremy1375; 01-15-2015 at 09:58 AM..
Re: Possibly the most retarded anti-gun ad I've ever seen...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy1375
If you leave your gun accessible and your child picks it up and shoots up the school, there should be some significant jail time for not properly locking your shit up and securing it.
There is. The owners/parents are held responsible in a lot of these case. Now every situation is going to be slightly different, but it's not something people turn a blind eye to. I've very protective of what I keep in my house, how I keep it in my house, and how it needs to be ready in case of self defense use. If i'm not I only have myself to blame and my actions shouldn't take away the rights of others who are following the laws.
My wife and I both have our carry permits. I agree that the standard class as we took it isn't enough. Thought others would say they shouldn't have to take a class to protect themselves and I agree with that as well. The reason I don't think the class is enough is someone doesn't really have to pay attention to the class to get it. Go through it, hit a target, pay $, done. When we did it I asked for a single class with only my wife and I and made sure he brought in some intro to handgun aspects for my wife. She needs to feel comfortable and secure with any gun she choose to have. It just so happens that is an full size M&P .45 with a wonderful Apex trigger kit.
In the end I wish the money spent to fight gun control was spent on disarming criminals and helping those with mental conflicts that lead them to improper use.
__________________
'16 Focus ST - Daily Duty
'93 mr2 - Track car in progress
Re: Possibly the most retarded anti-gun ad I've ever seen...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy1375
Finally found some time to think about this and sit down to reply.
While guns are far simpler mechanically as well as operationally than cars, I would argue that they are just as complex when it comes to safety and awareness. In Minnesota, a three hour course is all that’s needed training wise to get a carry permit. It seems unrealistic to me to prepare any person to carry a gun and truly understand the situation they’re potentially preparing to deal with in that short of a time let alone be aware of how the situation might affect their own abilities once if they find themselves in that position. If the conservative argument is such that the best crime prevention is an armed public, why is there not rigorous training and testing required to ensure a civilian is trained well enough to actually do the deed if it comes to that?
I don't have data to back this up, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb here by saying that the number of guns being operated per day on an annual basis is several orders of magnitude smaller than the number of vehicles being operated. The 4-1 argument will likely look much different if considered based on deaths by a percentage of use.
Using the top 7 causes of death you provided, firearm homicide is the only event where another human being is actively violating another person’s right to exist without being injured and/or killed (I saw abortion in the other data set and I’m not going to touch that one.) Everything else is bad self care, negligence, or bad luck. It’s a different type of event to be actively killed by another person versus not. It’s more traumatic to survivors at the least.
I guess I just think more can be done to prevent things like school shootings and the like. If you leave your gun accessible and your child picks it up and shoots up the school, there should be some significant jail time for not properly locking your shit up and securing it. I would assume the authors of the 2nd amendment implied personal responsibility.
Not sure where you're coming from with a world without police. I'm not for that and not sure who is.
I agree a 3 hour course is not enough. But I doubt even a 3 day course would be enough to mentally prepare somebody for a life threatening situation should it spontaneously arise without warning. Maybe 3 months of military training might, but thats unrealistic for the general populous.
But the Bill of Rights guarantees you and me the right to keeps and bare arms. Notice its a "Right" and not "Permit" which really makes the CCP a farse anyway. Now I will say that anybody found guilty in a court of law of commiting a crime using a gun should have their rights to own or possess a firearm stripped away and severe consequences if found with a firearm later.
The conservative argument has facts and data on its side showing that when a city/town/municipality allows it citizens CCP gun ownership, crime rates drop by a good margine because criminals are less likely to go after a victim if there is a strong possibility that they are carrying. I'm sure that if your life was threatened you'd rather be armed than not.
I agree that the number of guns fired daily vs cars driven is much lower, so where was the problem with guns again? Not trying to be funny with that statement, just trying to put it into perspective. I can't think of a gun owner I know that doesn't either shoot their guns at ranges or outdoors on some type of regular basis. They get plenty of trigger time and live to tell the tale.
Sure it takes a human being with a gun to kill another human being. Same as a baseball bat, knife, hammer, crowbar, etc. So why do we keep blaming the gun? And that goes for school shootings too. Take away the gun and it would be school knifings (we have those), school bombings (we have those) school beheadings (we have those) and so on. That's where my statement about teaching the value of life comes in, its not the gun, its the individual.
Alan addressed the child and gun issue very well, so I won't touch on that.
My comment about a world without police revolves around whats happening with police getting turned into targets these days by race baiters, protestors, politicians, etc. And those same groups are doing the same thing to gun owners. Sure there are some bad cops out there, just as there are bad criminals with guns. But we can't say all cops are bad because thats just not reality, the same as saying all gun owners are dangerous. So do you want all cops gone because of a few bad apples? Same thing goes for gun owners. Either one could save your life at any given time.
Alan's point about getting guns out of criminals hands leads me back to this pic I posted earlier,....
And if you really get pass the emotion and think about it, why go after lawful gun ownership and not criminals? Seriously think about that.
"You don't have a clue. You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance."
When she get's bitchy, SPANK THAT ASS!
(#Y#)
Last edited by 1ViciousGSX; 01-15-2015 at 06:14 PM..
Re: Possibly the most retarded anti-gun ad I've ever seen...
Democrats = Dicks
Republicans = Dicks
And those that don't know where they fit in between = Dicks
And... FIGHT!
__________________
Speaking about wanting kids...
turbotalon1g: 3 max, she wants one of each.
A////guy: "we are shooting for a transgender child this time"
"You don't have a clue. You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance."
Re: Possibly the most retarded anti-gun ad I've ever seen...
First off, thank you for being open minded and civil. I love these kinds of discussions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy1375
This discussion is causing me to hit the limits of my thoughts and knowledge on 2nd amendment rights, so I'm doing some research into what the 2nd amendment actually means.
And that's understandable considering all the mis-information flying around about the subject. Knowledge is power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy1375
The first legal case I've come across that set a precedent for the 2nd amendment was United States v. Cruikshank on March 27, 1876. Relating to the 2nd amendment, in a nutshell the Supreme Court interpreted it as limiting the federal government's powers on our right to bear arms. According to the ruling, it does not affect states rights to restrict gun rights.
This is a fine example of politics as we know it today. “Interpretation” is code for “We know it says one thing, but we want it to mean another”. It’s a purposeful manipulation to make you believe it means something else. The 2nd Amendment is really very clear. It reads exactly as follows:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Notice it doesn't say "A well regulated military".
So what is to “Interpret”? It’s really very clear, don’t you think? It doesn’t give the states additional rights does it? Nowhere does it say, “Unless you’re a state government, then you can do as you please”. The Bill of Rights is the document all laws for the people are supposed to be checked against.
Origins of the 2nd Amendment: “Having been oppressed by a professional army, the founding fathers of the United States had no use for establishing one of their own. Instead, they decided that an armed citizenry makes the best army of all. General George Washington created regulation for the aforementioned "well-regulated militia," which would consist of every able-bodied man in the country”.
Just to be clear, you and I are the militia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy1375
I'll look into the CCP crime rate data to see what I can find. I'm open to
shift my opinion if I can find solid data.
Please do let us know what you find.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy1375
Guns came into existence as a result of a drive to win wars with a more efficient weapon. They are more efficient, with the exception of bombs.
True and they’re also your best weapon for self defense from an attacker because you can take down a threat before it enters your “dead zone”. Dead zone referring to the 5-ft radius around your body that is close enough for an attacker to physically harm or kill you before you can react.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy1375
But, guns are much more readily available and usable than bombs. Nobody is arguing for the right to carry bombs.
Of course nobody would call for the right to carry bombs. Bombs are considered weapons of mass destruction. Add to that, bombs can be placed by an individual that can be long gone before it detonates.
As far as "readily available" goes, you can buy everything you need to build a pipe bomb at your local hardware store, with no background checks. Not that I'm promoting it either, just in case you were wondering, LoL.
So if we took away your and my right to a firearm, would that stop 68% of all homicides or would the stat move to other items like baseball bats, hammers, knives, pipe bombs, etc.?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy1375
To get into what is happening with the protests and race, we should probably start a different thread lol.
Agreed. But I’m making the point that if only law enforcement should have guns, why are we allowing race baiters to stir up the populous about police using guns when justified?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy1375
On your other point though, I am not for having all guns banned, but I still believe in some level of gun control that is above the current levels.
So where do you draw the line that allows infringing on a law abiding citizen’s protected rights?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy1375
Gun control laws will not get guns out of the hands of criminals.
So what were we talking about again? Not trying to be funny, just trying to make a point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy1375
The idea is to minimize opportunities for criminals to get guns that are not currently in their hands while allowing the lawful public to still have guns. The idea of disarming the public is a scare tactic to get people fired up.
So how does infringing on a law abiding citizen’s rights achieve that goal? Why should the law abiding citizen be made to jump through hoops and undergo all kinds of back ground checks and scrutiny? When does it go from “innocent until proven guilty” to “guilty until proven innocent”?
In the end, how will that stop criminals from getting guns?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy1375
I will give it serious thought. I haven't quite figured out yet whether you are for no gun control whatsoever though, or for no more than there already is.
Here’s my thought on the whole situation:
If we want to live in a free society that believes you are innocent until proven guilty, we’re going to have to put trust in our fellow man until given reason not to trust him anymore, but on an individual basis. I believe that if you’re convicted of a felony in this country that involved the use of a firearm you should lose you right to vote and possess firearms because you have proven that you can’t be trusted to uphold your end of the deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy1375
I understand your argument about punishing lawful folks for a few bad apples. I'm not even unsympathetic to the argument. I just don't believe there's a cut and dry answer.
There is a cut and dry answer; you come down as hard as possible on the bad apples making examples of them for the rest to see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy1375
On the subject, Japan has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world along with strict gun control laws.
In looking at Japan, is the low homicide rate due to strict guns laws? Or a citizenship brought up to believe in respect for another person's well being, and personal property, along with the value of human life?
"You don't have a clue. You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance."
When she get's bitchy, SPANK THAT ASS!
(#Y#)
Last edited by 1ViciousGSX; 01-23-2015 at 03:00 PM..
"You don't have a clue. You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance."
When she get's bitchy, SPANK THAT ASS!
(#Y#)
Last edited by 1ViciousGSX; 01-26-2015 at 11:12 AM..
Hybrid Mode
