Calling all avid Gun owners if there are any

[EnglishGolfer]

That is like saying "When was someone had a head on collision with a gun?"

I understand our society relies more on automobiles to get by, but does that simply make them any less dangerous? I think this is my point. Since when did it become O.K. to eliminate freedoms and rights simply based on necessity. You do understand that a golf course can be a very dangerous place if you put clubs in the wrong hands? Should we do away with the sport simply because people can be injured and it is not vital in most being able to earn a living for most?

You have now finally stumbled onto the big point that most choose to ignore in the effort to say guns kill people, not people. That being "intent". Again, the object whether it be a vehicle or a weapon is inanimate until put in motion by the operator. And yes, there are quite a few deaths in the US of the vehicular nature that are not accidents, it is called road rage. And how many drunken driving accidents kill people every year, that is far from being considered an accident, are you going to argue that is any less of a crime. It is illegal to operate vehicles under the influence, or speed, or miss stop signs, yet people do so at the risk of killing others on a daily basis. You can't argue "intent" on one side of this equation. The are alot of gun owners who have no "intent" of ever doing harm, yet we insist on judging them based on the actions of criminals that do not belong on the street. What is the attitude with vehicles? Get the bad apples off the road and put them behind bars, yet with guns it is assumed that doing away with the guns will do away with the criminals, as though criminals are too stupid to find another method.

Really what you mention here is the key, why would responsible people be willing to give up freedoms simply because it is not a vital part of society, and once you give people the authority to do so, what will be next when they become bored that only criminals have guns.

Golf Course are a big waste of valuable space, serve little purpose, and can be dangerous to the surrounding public. Are you willing to give up your clubs simply because people do not understand the value, and that most golfers are very responsible.

It is all about freedoms and rights. If they pursued half the laws on the books already regulating firearms, there would not be a problem. Instead it is easier and more convenient to try and further regulate as opposed to following up on what has been "accomplished" over the years. Most weapons used in crimes are illegally obtained, why is this to often ignore. How are you going to prevent criminals from obtain weapons, when they do so illegally already. If the weapons used in crimes are already illegal, you think further going after the legal weapons is really the answer.

I think you're really scraping the barrell with this argument.

Put simply, if the gun law in the US was the same as over here do you honestly think there would be as many murders and woundings?

Be honest, you don't even have to reply to this as long as you come to an answer by yourself. Obvioulsy knives are used for the same illegal reasons but I would imagine that is a helluva lot more difficult to motivate yourself to get close enough to a person go through with it and see their reaction up close. Therefore I think that murders would be reduced substantially.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of all crime involving a weapon of any kind (even cars just for you Jayhawk) have guns involved. I bet it's big!

 

[SiberianDVM]

Oh well then, that showed me, it must be an every day occurrence :biglol:

You obviously never met my ex-wife.

 

[DouginGA]

Put simply, if the gun law in the US was the same as over here do you honestly think there would be as many murders and woundings?

I would agree with you EG that murders would be down if that was the case, tho probably not as much as you would expect.

The difference is in attitude and upbringing. Brits are subjects of the Crown aren't they? I am a free man, and like the state motto of New hampshire "Live free or die" - there are two options there and unfortunately some are going to live free and some are gonna die. weird.

 

[DouginGA]

You obviously never met my ex-wife.

I still miss my ex-wives. But my aim is getting better ! :biglol::biglol: :hunter: :hunter:

 

[smileyrose]

Fire Blanks

I still miss my ex-wives. But my aim is getting better !

Hey man, in that case you're doing all wrong...you're not supposed to fire blanks!

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

I think you're really scraping the barrell with this argument.

Put simply, if the gun law in the US was the same as over here do you honestly think there would be as many murders and woundings?

Be honest, you don't even have to reply to this as long as you come to an answer by yourself. Obvioulsy knives are used for the same illegal reasons but I would imagine that is a helluva lot more difficult to motivate yourself to get close enough to a person go through with it and see their reaction up close. Therefore I think that murders would be reduced substantially.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of all crime involving a weapon of any kind (even cars just for you Jayhawk) have guns involved. I bet it's big!

It still seems like you are missing the vital point I keep mentioning.

I personally am not interested in how many lives it will save, if firearms where removed from the market, in the same sense, I am not interested in how many lives would be saved by eliminating automobiles from the market. They are both freedoms and rights that I am unwilling to part with. Both of which are proven to be very dangerous in their own right if not handled properly. The thought of giving up freedoms and rights and things that may bring me comfort or entertainment for the sake of the overall statistics of how bad they can be if not handled properly in the method for which they were intended is just ludicrous to me. If it is only about statistics, then automobiles are actually worse in my experience. Unfortunately, I find it hard to believe I will ever be able to change your mind that their only intended method of firearms is to kill innocent people. I guess it is just a difference of opinion that we will always have.

 

[ironman]

It still seems like you are missing the vital point I keep mentioning.

The thought of giving up freedoms and rights and things that may bring me comfort or entertainment for the sake of the overall statistics of how bad they can be if not handled properly in the method for which they were intended is just ludicrous to me. If it is only about statistics, then automobiles are actually worse in my experience. Unfortunately, I find it hard to believe I will ever be able to change your mind that their only intended method of firearms is to kill innocent people. I guess it is just a difference of opinion that we will always have.

well said, FKA Pa Jayhawk

"...The thought of giving up freedoms and rights...for the sake of the overall statistics of how bad they can be for the masses of uneducated and untrained...is just ludicrous to me

 

[EnglishGolfer]

It still seems like you are missing the vital point I keep mentioning.

I personally am not interested in how many lives it will save.......

I found it difficult to read past this point. What could be more precious? I could begin a tirade here but I feel little would be accomplished as you seem somewhat blinkered on the matter and rather bafflingly (is that a word?) refuse to leave cars out of the discussion.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

I found it difficult to read past this point. What could be more precious? I could begin a tirade here but I feel little would be accomplished as you seem somewhat blinkered on the matter and rather bafflingly (is that a word?) refuse to leave cars out of the discussion.

I don't know, just trying to put it into perspective of how blown out of proportion firearms are in the media. They had a shooting yesterday about 20 miles from where I used to live up until 3 years ago. I am not taking away how tragic the event was, simply devastating. Although I find it hard to believe it would have been preventing by banning firearms. Example of the media spin on this. This has been the headlining news for CNN's World News, note WORLD. Now lets look at another event that didn't even make the headline news
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/01/china.bus.crash.ap/index.html
... would you say 30 deaths and 20 injuries is less tragic simply because it did not involve a firearms, but is simply accepted as a cost of having automobiles.

I am not saying I am heartless to the tragedies that occur as a result of firearms, I am saying I see no reason to believe that they would be avoided by banning firearms. Please try and understand the difference. I know, it's hard when the media constantly tells you how all realist are simply heartless b@st@rds.

O.K., I'll drop the automobile talk as it appears to be falling on deaf ears, as it is "just the price you expect to pay for driving a vehicle"

How many drug overdoses do you see every day in the US? You would think they would have gone away long ago. After all, the drugs are illegal. Any open minded gun lobbyist can tell you, if they are illegal, they will simply dissappear, correct? Yet they are still killing people left and right, but that is the fault of the person for making an unwise, uneducated decision, and not the drug that has no conscience and lured him into the act, right?

 

[Bravo]

I found it difficult to read past this point. What could be more precious? I could begin a tirade here but I feel little would be accomplished as you seem somewhat blinkered on the matter and rather bafflingly (is that a word?) refuse to leave cars out of the discussion.

EG:

I DO agree that if handguns were outlawed in the U.S. and somehow criminals found them to be extraordinarily difficult to procure, then violent crime involving handguns would indeed go down. It only makes sense.

There are two problems with this though. One is practical and the other is based in history and the Constitution.

1) From a practical standpoint, A) Getting handguns that are currently in the possesion of criminals out of their hands and B) stopping the illegal supply of handguns so that in the future they could not be bought on the black market, would be extraordinarily difficult to do. The country is so utterly large and heavily populated that the practicality of it is not doable.

In our local paper yesterday, there was a headline about a cab driver who had a customer pull a gun on him and order him into the trunk of the cab.

The cab driver promptly picked up a pistol from under his seat, turned around and shot the guy in the head and killed him. There were witnesses and no charges were filed.

2) American Constitution. When this was finalized in 1787, six years after the war ended, a key component of it was the second Amendment, which reads:

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.

This goes back to the start of the revolution itself, when farmers formed 'militias' using their own guns. The first American army consisted of farmers and blacksmiths who used their own guns. There was no real army....

After the war, the American people strongly resisted a powerful central government, whether based in the English Crown or in the American capital. They wanted to build a nation of states with as limited government as possible. They felt that if the new American government became oppressive, then they should have the right to own guns and start another revolution against it. This second Amendment to the Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and this is why citizens refer to gun ownership as a RIGHT....because this is literally true.

There is a US law that people here may not be aware of. It basically says that if you have been convicted of a felony (which is a serious crime) that you can not possess a gun. Once you commit a serious crime your right to bear arms no longer exists. And if the police catch you with a gun in your possesion and they find that you are a convicted felon - you go to prison. So the government HAS tried to get guns out of the hands of bad guys....but undeniably (and sadly) they still get them and use them with deadly force.

Having worked in law enforcement, I would say overall that the ideal situation would be one where if we could indeed get all handguns out of the country, except for usage by police and military - we would indeed have substantially much less violent crime. Again it just makes horse sense.

On the other hand, 'the genie is out of the bottle' both culturally as well as legally on this issue...it ain't gonna happen here.

 

[EnglishGolfer]

I didn't want to sink to this but (and I'm not going to go into detail just to try to win an debate), but 3 schools in the last week have had shooting incidents resulting in multiple deaths in the US. IN ONE WEEK!

Morally I can't (despite honestly trying) see the other side of the argument as valid. I don't have a problem with people using them at gun clubs as long as that is where they remain but they should not be available to the public.

 

[Bravo]

I didn't want to sink to this but (and I'm not going to go into detail just to try to win an debate), but 3 schools in the last week have had shooting incidents resulting in multiple deaths in the US. IN ONE WEEK!

Morally I can't (despite honestly trying) see the other side of the argument as valid. I don't have a problem with people using them at gun clubs as long as that is where they remain but they should not be available to the public.

I am not offended by your post. I deplore the school shootings as much as anyone...but as I wrote in my post, the laws are so old (as old as the country) that they simply are not going to be changed. It is one of the fundamental rights given to all citizens. I wasn't necessarily trying to defend the right to handgun ownership as much as trying to explain what happened 250 years ago when the Constitution was written and how this has affected everything...

 

[SiberianDVM]

I'll agree that handguns should not be available to crazy *******s, and that's who did the shootings.

Narcisistic psychopaths, every one of them.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

Morally I can't (despite honestly trying) see the other side of the argument as valid.

So, I suppose the illegal taser, and Black Powder explosives that were also found would have served no real purpose had it not come down to firearms. Oh, and I forgot the self made binding post and KY Jelly. Yes, you got me there, I would buy this was a perfectly sane individual who would have caused no harm had it not been for the vial influence of the firearm on his psychy.

See, I really hate to stoop to this level as well, but nothing PO's me more than giving a guy like this an excuse and trying to ignore the fact that he is simply a twisted b@st@rd that would have simply done harm by some other method had he not been able to purchase a firearm through legal or illegal means. Certainly was a law abiding, God fearing citizen right up until that firearm jumped in his hands and wrongly influenced his life?

edit 1 - See, guys like this are why it is unlikely you will ever convince me to give up my firearms. If he shows up I want to be prepared so something like this doesn't happen to my family.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

You know, I'll concede my part of this "debate" at this point and apologize to the people who have read my rant's and rave's. I personally see it has reached a distastful level, in part because of my own comments and sarcasm, and will not continue on my side.

I see this as a futile attempt at this point, and as Bravo indicated, with 250 years of American History this is something that will likely not be resolved in my lifetime. Time to move on and enjoy my rights and freedoms that will continue, assuming I do not disprove I am capable of handling my part of the responsibility. I will move on to continue my "Freedom of Speech" through other means.

Cheers guys, and no hard feelings EG, I will simply agree to disagree at this point.