What is your opinion on guns?
My uncle was raised on a farm, was a veteran of the Vietnam War, and currently owns and operates a farm of his own.
When I spent time with him, he taught me about guns, and educated me in their use.
And one thing he always taught me is: "A gun is a tool."
Personally, I feel that guns can be very useful.
I believe that people have the right to own them.
I do believe them to be tools, and like any tool, they can be used for good or bad, depending on the person wielding them.
Guns don't in themselves kill people.
A gun cannot lift itself off a nightstand and shoot someone.
Rather it is the person who does that.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Unfortunately, when a gun related crime is committed, immediately people want to blame the object, instead of the person.
Doesn't it make more sense to hold the person accountable, who is able to distinguish right from wrong - and whom chose to do wrong, as opposed to an object that has no ability to reason, but just does as it's designed to do?
That's like blaming a dog because it acts on instinct!
And what the people who use them to defend themselves and their families?
As human beings, we have a moral right and responsibility to protect our families.
This is all why it puzzles me that there are so many out there who want to have gun control laws!
Now I do believe that every gun owner should be trained in it's use, and if that person has a wife and children, that should also be trained its use.
In regards to the family scenario, if there indeed is an incident regarding the child, and if he wassup not trained in how to handle a gun, nor taught to respect the power and damage it can do, then the fault lies with the parents.
All gun control laws will do is make it harder for average people to obtain guns.
Thanks to the Black Market, it will NOT stop criminals from getting guns and using them for their own sadistic purposes.
And it what is really sad, and this is thanks to political correctness, that if someone in the public eye dares to perpetuate such a viewpoint, they agree immediately vilified.
According to the first amendment, citizens are guaranteed the right to free speech, even if their viewpoint is unpopular.
However, PC would rob us of that!
Listen to what Charlton Heston, who aside from being an actor was a Long Time supporter - and eventually president of the NRA, had to say about political correctness.
enter link description here
enter link description here
Comments
1.) You should ask that a mod move this to Telltale Talk. It wound up in forum games somehow.
2.) I'm kinda disappointed, I was expecting a firearm enthusiast thread, not political rhetoric. But since you brought it up, this is my two cents.
I like guns. I own a couple and have enough training to concealed carry and clear my house of bad guys in case of emergency. I experienced a home invasion last year and I'm damn glad I had a gun. It turned out that it was just an ornery drunk who wandered through an unlocked door, but merely brandishing my rifle was enough to instantly bring the situation under my control.
That said, pro-gun groups like the NRA make me completely embarrassed to be a gun owner. I canceled my membership after how the leadership handled Sandy Hook and I don't regret it for a second. They spew delusional rhetoric, buy politicians and completely refuse to even consider common-sense gun safety laws.
The 'political correctness' victimhood and whining I've been hearing on these forums is incredibly tiresome. You also ignore the huge amount of right-wing political correctness regarding the 2nd Ammendment. Have you ever seen someone go on Fox News and say bad words like "background checks" and "trigger locks"? Guess what, they're going to be heavily ridiculed and demonized! Liberals aren't the only ones who belittle those who disagree with them.
Just now moved it to General Chat.
As I said in another thread, this is one area where I actually lean more towards the conservative side of things. Pretty much everyone in my area hunts deer with either a rifle or a bow, or both. My dad was a hunter, most of my friends are or were hunters, and I enjoy venison (and I really like deer hunting season, as I'm usually given some by my friends).
For me personally, I took a criminal justice pistol permit class in college, and enjoyed shooting at the firing range. I still have the target I used on my last day of classes.
From where I sit typing this, in Australia, I love guns. I have had a junior shooter's license for a bit over two years now, and have gone down to the rifle range range about every two months or so with a 22 and enjoy it everytime.
In relation to laws, I am quite content with them here in Australia. With America, though, I shall leave that topic alone. I have no desire to start a debate at the moment.
Besides, I will positively relish in the fallout generated here. I forsee so many juicy and succulent arguments on here. May the mighty Thread Mjölnir spare this one enough that I may get my sustinance.
Yes, if only there were some way to make that into a rule that everyone had to follow...
My opinion? Make sure people aren't insane or criminal before handing them a device that can propel a metal shard into another person's organs from 50+ yards away. Not too much to ask, right?
They kill people when people kill people with them.
Guns don't kill people. People do, a gun is a tool. If you're going to blame the gun for a murder, may as well blame the car for driving drunk and the fork for making people fat.
As of 2013 only 33,636 people were killed by gun related accidents, now compare that to diabetes which kills 75,578 people per year.
Who's the real villain here?
As long it's not equipment malfunction. Even gun can miss-fire, especially if you're on war front.
Not a single right minded person argues that the problem is guns spontaneously shooting people.
Sigh. DId I claim that somewhere or don't you believe it can happen?
"Guns don't kill people, People kill People." - Charlton Heston
"Yeah, well the gun fucking helps!" - George Carlin
Plus this whole 'oh, criminals will get it on the black market," - you mean like in Chicago where gun laws are strict but criminials still get guns? Yeah, they get all the way out from Wisconsin, where it's much easier. Not to mention the entire premise assumes the only people who have guns are going to be Marlo Stanfield or Buford Pusser (accusation of racism intended - not by you, neccesarily, but by a lot of people who make that argument) - it doesn't account for gun accidents, mistaking a family member for an intruder, getting angry and shooting somebody, gun theft, the mentally ill, etc.
I actually don't have anything against gun ownership - though I believe more in the 'tyranny' argument than the personal protection one (or obviously hunting/sports shooting) - but I think things like background checks and mandatory safety courses are not asking very much.
Lots more people used to die from painkiller overdoses. The people are what killed themselves, not the drugs (by your logic, of course) - does this mean that the law preventing people from bulk buying lots of painkillers at once (enough for a lethal dose) is a bad idea?
I'm just saying, the whole 'guns dont kill people, people kill people' argument doesn't really make sense, because it's much more complex. Having easy means to kill someone can make you more likely to actually do it, same with drug overdoses.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Then again guns were invented for the intent to kill. Yeah I freaking hate guns
Guns, they exist, they are a weapon. Regulations should be made to enforce stricter control, we should stop acting like stopping a mentally ill person from having a gun is breaking their rights then complain when tragedy happened.
Firearms are used to kill (outside of target shooting), but more often than not they are used to kill animals for food. It's still the best way to do that, as hunting with an arrow is less powerful, less precise, and can lead to the animal running off injured a lot easier than when hunting with a rifle.
I'd rather have and not need it then need it and not have it.
Thread: Obama's new gun control policy. What're your thoughts?
If you've been paying attention to the news, then you know that President Obama is striving for greater gun control, and is beginning to enact new laws concerning it. Well I must say personally, though I think background checks are smart, as it would be irresponsible to sell a gun to a person with a record of mental illness, or who is currently battling mental illness, or who has a criminal reccord, I STRONGLY object to the idea of banning guns outright. That kinda of thinking flies directly in the face of the 2nd amendment!
Without guns, we would never have been able to have revolted against England to begin with. And besides, even though a gun is designed to take a human life, it cannot do so on its own, nor does it have any moral compass to know that such things, like muder for example, is plain wrong. So the idea of banning guns because "they kill people", is not a strong enough argument.
Guns don't kill people, but rather people kill people, and even if guns had never been invented, people would still be able to kill each other anyhow. Everything has the ability to be used to kill, even something as simple as a rock laying on the ground. In order to stop people from killing each other, what would really need to be banned is human greed, insanity, hatred, and intolerance. But when it comes to issue of violent crime, nobody EVER discuss any of those things, and I honestly believe that it is because deep in our hearts we all know that those traits sadly are apart of ALL of us in some way, shape, or form, and likely always will be.
Banning guns outright, in order to fight crime is NOT the answer. Unfortunately, even that would still NOT be able to keep a criminal who really wants a gun from getting one, thanks to the black-market, as neither would background checks in all reality. Nor would it stop them from commiting a violent crime by some other means. Rather the only way to fight crime is to actually punish the people who are guilty of commiting it, instead of allowing them to so often times manipulate the law system to try to escape punishment.
Here's a video that a friend of mine showed me, what a victim of gun-related crime had to say about gun-control, as well as how two entertainment legend breakdown the 2nd amendment.
enter link description here
People are a violent species, and guns won't change that. Take guns away, and people will just find other ways to kill each other. We have restrictions on who can drive cars, so why shouldn't we have restrictions on who can own guns? If you're a mentally stable, law abiding citizen, then I see no reason why you shouldn't have a gun.
Personally, I think the best way to deal with something that could become a threat is EDUCATING people. Just as we teach people to drive cars, we should teach people to safely use guns. Shutting people away from the issue is only going to make them wonder even more. Ever been in a situation where someone is withholding information, and the fact that they won't share it makes you more interested? It's something like that. Coddling people will just make them unable to deal with the issue, so I think we should make sure people are prepared to handle a issue when it confronts them.
Doesn´t gets much harder than Sean Connery as Malone.
A gun is a weapon. Not a tool. Tools are for fixing things, not killing them. It's sole purpose is to kill, whether it's an animal or human.
EDIT: Took me a while to realize this was from a month ago, but my point still stands.
Guns? Hot-headed, short, needs more make-up. I see her sometimes at school.
8.9/10 hmu
It would be nice if guns were never invented. I hope someday people, gangs and governments especially, get smart enough to stop using them. But as long as they do, I support the right for citizens to own firearms for defense.
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy." -- George Orwell
I believe in the right to bear arms, but hate the NRA-dogma and fetishization of violence. The way they buy politicians and interfere with the democratic process is indefensible. As I stated somewhere else in this thread, I burned my membership card in 2012 and I'm damn proud of it.
A couple things to keep in mind.
Guns are not tools. They are weapons, designed with a singular purpose: to kill. Re-branding firearms as 'tools' is a blatant and silly form of political correctness.
You should never be able to purchase a firearm without a background check. PERIOD. That's common fucking sense.
You shouldn't have access to a gun without training. If I had quarter for every time someone had an accidental discharge or did something stupid at my local range, I could buy a new handgun.
Gun manufacturers should be subject to lawsuits, just like the makers of any other consumer product.
Don´t really know why but for some reason I got reminded of Home Alone, this one is fun
enter link description here
Again, hyperbole - anybody says a single word about regulation and people immediately jump to banning guns.
What nobody is talking about that has me very concerned is the part about mental health. All I know is they say it's going to help states integrate mental health into backgrounds checks, or help states keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. But how exactly are they going to do that? I know a lot of states have manditory reporting for a credible belief that a patient is going to hurt themselves or others, and if all the law is is federalizing that standard, then I have no problem. However, if it is preemptory, in which case anybody seeking to buy a firearm needs to submit any mental health records, then I find it appauling. As much as you're concerned about the 2nd Amendment gradually being chipped away into nothing, that's how I feel about doctor-patient privilege.
In that regard, I'm worried this is another example of how liberals are ruining everything - the right wing comes up with some cockamaimy idea that abuses people's rights, and the left only cares whether it applies disproportionately to minorities, or, as potentially in this case, allow themselves to be moved two steps to the right because it seems better than the conservatives' ten steps. What are a lot of liberals saying now? "Oh, the right wing was always talking about mental health, they so won't oppose this, will they?" The point of liberals isn't supposed to be catering to conservatives, it's supposed to be striving to enact their own policies.
delete
You don´t need to much to kill another person with a gun, now a banana... that´s were skill is at kids.
I like the argument "guns don´t kill people, people do". Well, WHO MADE THE GUNS SMART GUY!!! GOTCHA!!!
enter link description here
enter link description here
Now that's how you do it!!!
Guns can be dangerous if you don't know how to use them. And a lot of people use guns to murder or rob. I believe people can have guns if you can trust them not to do anything evil with them. I think guns are fun to use. I have a 410 which is a single shot. I use it for target practice and i went hunting with it once. And i tell you what, is feels awesome when you pull the trigger and hear the "BANG". Is my favorite part about shooting. But do i use them for crimes like murdering or robbing? No...no i don't.
My opinion is that guns can be fun to use but never use them for bad stuff and people should not shoot guns unless they know how to use them.
I agree, that if a person doesn't know how to how handle a gun safely and responsibly, they have no business owning one.
As I said in the post: " I do believe that every gun owner should be trained in it's use, and if that person has a wife and children, that should also be trained its use. In regards to the family scenario, if there indeed is an incident regarding the child, and if he wassup not trained in how to handle a gun, nor taught to respect the power and damage it can do, then the fault lies with the parents."
I believe that people should own guns if they want, but they should take a test to see if they are intelligent enough to be allowed to own one. I don't want stupid people shooting other people.
Where do we begin?
Well first, guns are weapons and not tools. There are only 3 types of people who should even dare to claim they're tools: active (let me stress active) military members in combat, active law enforcement officers, and citizens who if not solely, mostly make a living off hunting. Guns were built to kill, yes it's the wielder's choice who they aim at but you don't claim a grenade is a tool. People kill people, but when you give them a means that makes killing so easy they don't even need to think, you are making a recipe for disaster.
We have such a misconception in America, that we need guns. No we don't. Guns are a want. The 2nd amendment (for all you constitution lovers out there) was written in a time when America being taken over by foreign power was a legitimate threat, and so was the concern that the government could become corrupt easily and the only way to liberate the people was through violence. First off, the government is already corrupt and controls the population and instills it's will. But gun advocates don't seem to care because it's not gun related. Take away personal privacy, as long as they have a gun, I guess. So, what are these "freedom fighters" gonna storm congress and the white house. No, they'll make threats and stamp their feet, and only if someone labeled as a Democrat is in power. Which, do I need to remind that under Obama, gun regulation actually eased up so much, despite the fear mongering propaganda that he wanted to take all your guns. Now, finally after so much media attention on mass shootings, and in his last months of office, does he dare to push for what this country needs.
Also, back to the point about the amendment. They're called amendments because nothing in the constitution should be permanent. If a law or rule becomes out dated, you improve and change. If we never changed the amendment, I could own a person because of their skin color. The point of owning a gun back then was it was the only way to guarantee you could protect your personal liberties. We're in the 21st century where most progressive and moderates all agree that violence is the last course of action, and if you're so quick to use it, you're usually in the wrong. And if the fact that besides social changes over a couple hundred years is not enough reason, technology is.
When the amendment was passed, guns could fire 1 bullet every minute, and not the most accurately. Now, even action firearms can fire at slowest (and with an untrained user) once around every 20 secs (and that's stretching time). How many guns out there can put out so much bullets so quickly, reload in little time, and get back to firing? Do the math. All the people who say: you take away guns people will still kill each other. First, so because people break rules, we should have no rules? And secondly, redo Sandy Hook but the kid only has a knife, how many fewer people would've died? Gun advocates seem to so easily remove the human element of these tragedies, and even normal people are beginning to grow numb because of how often they're happening. We're still in the first month of this year and we've had over 1,000 violent gun incidents already, and almost 300 deaths and 4 mass shootings. That is goddamn sickening.
Then so many put the blame solely on the individual who goes and commits the atrocities. So they say let's improve the mental healthcare system. Well first off, why not just make sure unstable individuals don't get guns? Oh we're infringing on their rights. Goddammit, a gun is no longer a need, it's a want that carries a lot of responsibility and while many individuals are capable at handling the responsibility, a lot aren't and it needs to be someone's responsibility to weed them out. That's how all licenses work, to make sure that people are respecting the responsibility of the activity they want to pursue (even though our driver's test is a joke but that's another rant). But, I digress, activists promote mental health, which is great but at the same time, they fight it and label it irrelevant when the topic of guns is not attached to it. That's such a selfish and bigoted mind set it's enraging to me. These are the same people that fight a health care system that would make it affordable for them because propaganda labels it as socialist and brainwashed so many into thinking that it's evil. I am completely for improving every aspect of the healthcare system, and definitely mental (it's such a disrespected area of medicine I feel). I just can't help but point out the hypocrisy of those only want to fix it in order to take the heat away from guns.
Then on top of all that, I'm appalled by how easy it is to buy a gun. I'm pissed about lack of regulations and background checks in regular sales, but what infuriates me is that you can buy pass all those legally at gun conventions. I have a friend, he owns guns, he's very safe with them and does everything right, and he is scared by what he sees at these conventions. Why does an average citizen need such easy access to military grade weaponry? They don't, you cannot justify it. It's a want and we make this want way too easy to attain, while brushing aside that awful people take advantage of this ease of access to do horrible things.
So what am I asking for? Well I'm not saying ban all guns, that's unrealistic on so many levels. I'm saying whatever it takes to make buying guns a hassle pretty much. I look at other countries that have higher standards about gun control and they're not being oppressed, like some would want you to believe. We're not at risk of losing our nation because of guns, we've pretty much lost this nation to corporations already. Guns won't keep us more safe as individuals, almost every time a shooting is stopped by a citizen, they don't have a gun. We had a mass shooting for almost everyday of the year in 2015 (330), over 1,000 since 2013. So many deaths and suicides, and injuries caused by them both intentional and accidental it is dizzying and hard to comprehend. If we could make a noticeable cut back in these statistics, that would be an enormous step forward for this nation. And we have so much proof that, continuing what we have been doing, or making guns more accessible is not the answer.
Now have some vids
enter link description here
enter link description here
enter link description here
enter link description here
enter link description here
I need to know what is the parameters on mental illness. I know there have been instances where it has been reported that the mass shooter has a "history" of mental illness. Honestly I hope mental illness includes people who exhibit massive amount of rage, serial abusers, people with history of domestic violence against spouses and children, & people with multiple assault/battery convictions because there is a broad spectrum of mental illnesses out there and I do think just throwing out "mental illness" for denial is somewhat irresponsible.
I hope you don't mind, but I'm bored, so I'm going to critique the shit out of this. Full disclosure, I'm a gun-owner, concealed-carry holder (though infrequent carrier) and fairly radical left-winger. In short, I have some biases.
We're in agreement about the first part, but not the second. Guns are weapons regardless of what you use them for.
That's a nice sentiment in suburban middle America, but it doesn't reflect my reality. I live near a crime hotspot where the police are useless and slow to respond. Usually, it's non-violent stuff, but lately there's been a rash of burglaries and stick-ups. I've had to pull my gun on a criminal twice this year. I need a gun.
Your logic : "the government is corrupt and is eroding our civil liberties. We might as well disarm." What? Admittedly, you’re right about the wingnuts who don’t care about their non-gun related freedoms.
I’d argue that the “freedom fighters” are going to challenge the government from a position of increased strength, because the government is fearful of the repercussions of engaging them with force. When the left-wing flower children protest, the state can use violence against them without much fear of reprisal. When the armed sovereign citizens protest, the state has to wait them out or risk a firefight
I need to remind you that this has nothing to do with Obama. It’s symptomatic of NRA interference in the democratic process. That’s also why the President’s executive action is a fairly toothless, hollow threat.
That’s not the case. The Supreme Court can make judgements about the constitutionality of some actions and how they relate to the Bill of Rights, but to my knowledge, amendments can’t be modified, only nullified.
Incorrect. A new amendment (the 13th) was created, abolishing slavery and theoretically providing equal rights. No ammendments were "changed" per-se.
You’re contradicting yourself, before you said the 2nd amendment was created to deal with foreign invaders. Besides, how has the need to protect one’s civil liberties different now from before, other than the fact that we’re currently losing the battle.
Sound logic, but I honestly think that sensibly restricting access to guns and improving our social infrastructure (to deal with mental illness, etc) is a much better solution than going back to muskets.
I couldn’t agree more. In fact, their careless, defiant attitude after Sandy Hook is why I no longer associate with the right-wing pro gun crowd.
Sure, and I’d argue that it’s constitutionally viable, but that doesn’t mean we should neglect mental health. Unfortunately, as long as for-profit healthcare exists, we will have out of control mental illness and the resulting violence. Restricting access to guns is an important part of it, but it’s not a solution in and of itself.
Once again, it’s an important part of self-defense for some people.
I’d be fine with that. “A well-regulated militia”, after all.
I concur. NRA hypocrisy and the medical racket is infuriating.
I don’t know about your friend, but I bought my first gun at a convention and I had to go through a full background check. The military weapons don’t bother me, it’s mainly just a difference in aesthetics that separates them from sporting rifle. There should definitely be a waiting period though.
How is that enough? Even if we could tighten the standards of guns sales, but that’s a small part of the equation. We need more voluntary and involuntary training measures. We need to encourage and subsidize the development of smart gun technology, as many of the guns used in crimes are stolen. We need to change lobbying laws, so the politicians aren’t more loyal to the NRA than they are to the people, and we need to overhaul the social infrastructure to combat the roots of gun violence: mental illness and poverty and I guarantee none of this will happen because...
and the greater good is bad for the bottom line.
That’s a matter of material conditions. Most of these shining examples of progressive gun control aren’t oppressive to begin with. They’re liberal democracies, with progressive social policies and excellent political freedoms. The U.S is a sham democracy with stagnant/regressive social policies, and extensive crackdowns on civil liberties. I would trust the Norweigan government with a monopoly on force. I don’t trust the American government with a monopoly on force.
They’ve kept me more safe. I’ve defended my property (and quite possibly myself) twice by brandishing a firearm. The averages would say I’m an outlier, but that’s easy to argue when you weren’t woken up at 2am to the sound of someone fiddling with your locks. That said, the “good guy with a gun” mass shooting narrative is total bullshit.
You know as well as I do that things probably won’t change so long as America remains in its current state. If by some miracle it does, it will undoubtedly be reversed down the line that’s the problem inherent to all reformism. Ultimately, we as Americans need to either rise up or accept that the status quo will only change when the powers-that-be demand it.
You're wrong about the single shot gun at the time the 2nd amendment was passed. There were a few that could shoot 15 rounds in under a minute, such as the Girandoni air rifle(which was used by Lewis and Clark). Not agreeing or disagreeing, just pointing that out.