guns or no guns?
Replies
-
Guns dont kill people, people do. Banning guns is not the answer, look how that worked out making drugs illegal. If they make guns illegal that only takes guns out of law abiding citizens. People are stupid to think that making something illegal will make people who break the law stop breaking the law. Dangerous criminals dont care about the law or scared of our laughable prisons. Look at weed, they made that illegal and now kids are getting high off over the counter stuff that kills them. people are going to do whatever they want to do, its that simple, no one is going to stop them.
As for the shootings, I dont believe if someone had a gun could have stopped him, he was armored heavily and also just cause someone has a gun doesnt mean he is trained, skilled, or wouldnt panic in that high stressed environment. It could have made things worse if people were shooting at him, they might have hit someone else. My heart goes out to the families and I will keep them in my prayers. The fact is, this guy checked out and even if there were no guns, he would have made a bomb or had something illegally shipped in.
We cant control guns, drugs, illegal immigrants, drinking and driving, obesity, and prevent other nations from making nuclear weapons. It just cant be control. I dont know what the answer is, its not an easy fix. I think we need to study this guy and find out what makes him check out and hope to prevent this from happing again. I do know our economy sucks, people are getting arrested on purpose to get healthcare, and people need to quit being mean to nerds in high school.0 -
I imagine I will p!ss a lot of people off with this opinion, but if you're using the 2nd amendment for your argument, your argument is invalid. Most that cherry pick the constitution to suit their agenda misquote it. The 2nd amendment allowed for gun ownership, which back in the day was a, what, musket, as part of an organized community militia. Forgive my southern, but ain't none a'ya'll part o' no dang militia. Have your personal revolver for home protection, have your rifle for hunting. That's all anyone needs. Guns are like a lot of things. Just because they exist, doesn't mean you should have one. I'd like to have a nuke just so I could play US vs. China with anyone that pisses me off. See how that wouldn't be a good idea?
I'm a part of the anti-liberal militia.0 -
........0
-
And don't like American gun rights, move to N Korea... Don't like smoking don't smoke ! Don't like drinking ? Don't drink. You don't like guns ? Don't buy them...
0 -
0 -
Some of mine:
The main gun safe - the two primary home defense carbines in the front (my suppressed 10.5" AR-15 and the suppressed HK UMP):
My HK USP Tactical running an AAC TiRant suppressor (sigh- I will see if I can size this correctly):
Shooting my S&W M&P-9 VTAC 0 this is my primary carry weapon:
My son with the primary home defense carbine- HK UMP with green laser, light, EoTech sight and running the Gemtech UMP suppressor:
The wife with her suppressed AR- Armalite lower, pencil barrel upper running a Surefire suppressor:
Last one- the son again with Mom's suppressed AR-15 and wearing his Springfield Armory XDm:
I got a lot more photos but dont want to suck up too much bandwidth...0 -
I took a gun class a few months ago. The guy that taught the class said this.
"Most people are sheep. Do you want to be a sheep or do you want to be a wolf. Where the wolf will rise and defend the sheep? Since you're here you're all wolves."
That being said, I beleive in guns. Just because there is a nut case out there who goes into a movie theator to shoot people doesn't mean thats always the case.
I walked into a movie theater today. I went to see Batman. Did I get shot?
The answer to that is no. I didn't.
In reality, you have a chance at getting killed by hopping into your car every day. You can get killed by going on a dam plan.
You can get killed by from freak of nature!
That being said, I will learn how to use a gun. I will, for my safety, go out to the shooting range and learn to shoot.
I will learn to defend myself.
I will NOT be a sheep!
That is my thoughts on it.0 -
Erasing previous comment simply because I realize the futility of the argument for simple compromise.0
-
Some of mine:
The main gun safe - the two primary home defense carbines in the front (my suppressed 10.5" AR-15 and the suppressed HK UMP):
Can I be your son too? :happy:0 -
ourSome of mine:
The main gun safe - the two primary home defense carbines in the front (my suppressed 10.5" AR-15 and the suppressed HK UMP):
My HK USP Tactical running an AAC TiRant suppressor (sigh- I will see if I can size this correctly):
Shooting my S&W M&P-9 VTAC 0 this is my primary carry weapon:
My son with the primary home defense carbine- HK UMP with green laser, light, EoTech sight and running the Gemtech UMP suppressor:
The wife with her suppressed AR- Armalite lower, pencil barrel upper running a Surefire suppressor:
Last one- the son again with Mom's suppressed AR-15 and wearing his Springfield Armory XDm:
I got a lot more photos but dont want to suck up too much bandwidth...
That is seriously awesome. I LOVE the pic with your wife!! Girls and guns!!0 -
Honestly, I think the kinds of people that use guns for the wrong reason are going to get their hands on them whether they're legal or not. Better to keep them legal and regulate them a little more, like limiting clip size.0
-
Some of mine:
The main gun safe - the two primary home defense carbines in the front (my suppressed 10.5" AR-15 and the suppressed HK UMP):
Can I be your son too? :happy:
me three ... well daughter lol 0 -
Honestly, I think the kinds of people that use guns for the wrong reason are going to get their hands on them whether they're legal or not. Better to keep them legal and regulate them a little more, like limiting clip size.
Agree!0 -
I imagine I will p!ss a lot of people off with this opinion, but if you're using the 2nd amendment for your argument, your argument is invalid. Most that cherry pick the constitution to suit their agenda misquote it. The 2nd amendment allowed for gun ownership, which back in the day was a, what, musket, as part of an organized community militia. Forgive my southern, but ain't none a'ya'll part o' no dang militia. Have your personal revolver for home protection, have your rifle for hunting. That's all anyone needs. Guns are like a lot of things. Just because they exist, doesn't mean you should have one. I'd like to have a nuke just so I could play US vs. China with anyone that pisses me off. See how that wouldn't be a good idea?
I'm a part of the anti-liberal militia.
Ha! Too funny! Great thing is, I'm actually a conservative. :bigsmile: I'm just not a fan of large weaponry circulating in the public under the guise of protection. If you can't protect yourself with a .38 or a 9mm, what the hell are you afraid of? There's nothing in the GOP bylaws that say I have to agree with the NRA agenda. Conservatives do have opinions of their own outside of party propaganda. And as far as being part of any kind of militia, maybe the MMO-RPG players of 'merica, but that's likely it.
Lol a .38 or 9mm won't do much to an intruder wearing a bullet proof vest, if anything you'll make him laugh at you and then become another homicide victim...
By the way I'm not conservative, both sides are too corrupt for me to ever associate myself with either of them.0 -
Pro-Gun and Pro-responsible use and ownership of said gun.
Should I be anti-fertilizer so that people can't make home-made bombs to blow the **** out of a building full of inncoent workers. Or would I be wrong because that is not fair to the farmers who use it as it is intended.
Snipped for brevity since my own post is long, but I agree with the entire post. It's very easy for people to point at the guns and gasp about things, and anytime that there's a murder - particularly such a public one - this inevitably comes up.
People want something to blame and they focus on the easiest thing to focus on. "Guns" are a concept with a physicality that they can latch onto, point fingers at, and comprehend. Mental illness? Not so much. What do you do about mental illness? How do you fix that? So much easier to attack the weapon used, and it's so much easier for the politicians to use and the news to make headlines with.
Reality, conversely, is difficult and messy and nebulous.
It's a circular debate, with people saying to "ban guns" and the rest saying that in banning the guns only the criminals will have them. Agreeing or disagreeing with the possession of guns tends to come down to the perspective that one has on life, and there's rarely any changing of that.
Me, I look at the 2nd Amendment for what it is. To stand up to the police force or the government as need be, if need be. I see the wisdom in this, particularly based on how the U.S. was founded, and it saddens me when people try to argue "hunting" as the only reason to possess firearms. Why should anyone need bigger guns? Simple: Because the government & police forces have access to bigger guns, and you can't stand up to them if you're not on equal ground.
That's me, though. Others scoff at the idea that such a thing would ever be necessary. Honestly, there's a part of me that's happy for that. Why? Because they CAN feel right saying those things. As messed up as our U.S. government is - and it is seriously messed up IMO - it's still incredibly far fetched to say that we'd need to ever exercise the purpose behind the 2nd amendment: For the security of a free state.
With all of that said, I absolutely believe that training should be a requirement to gun ownership. Others would argue that this would be a "tax" on the possession of firearms and therefore would be an indirect way to limit them. I say make training a requirement at least to anything over the most basic hand gun because people need to respect the weapon that they own. IMO you can't respect the weapon if you don't know the weapon.
Ultimately, most people who own guns are responsible people, and they go through the process of obtaining the guns (all of the background checking nonsense, the months of waiting, and so on) because they're law abiding citizens. Their guns aren't used unless absolutely necessary, much like I don't go around beating random people up with my martial arts training just because I have said training.
Anyway, this is an issue that a single person could write a small book about, and I can only look at this from the perspective of a U.S. citizen as it is. I have my perspective, others have their own. I respect the emotions and the thoughts of those who disagree with me, but they will no sooner convince me that guns should be banned than I will convince them that every house hold should have at least one firearm.
What a great post!!! I have read all of the comments and this has been my favorite.
Well said and explained! I hope everyone on this post takes the time to read this!0 -
I can't believe this thread has not been shut down yet. HELLO, DIVISIVE MUCH?0
-
Honestly, I think the kinds of people that use guns for the wrong reason are going to get their hands on them whether they're legal or not. Better to keep them legal and regulate them a little more, like limiting clip size.
I liked everything until you said limiting clip size
I like the fact that I live in Texas and I'm not restricted on clip size like people in California. More rounds to protect myself if necessary, plus when going to the range it's nice not having to change and reloads magazine every 2 seconds :happy:0 -
I can't believe this thread has not been shut down yet. HELLO, DIVISIVE MUCH?
why would it be shut down? if it upsets you so much DONT OPEN IT!!!0 -
I honestly don't know what the answer is.
However, I do question why it was so easy to buy so much ammunition from internet sites. It seems like there should be a way to limit it within a certain period of time.
Obviously, the guy was very unhappy and no one was able to see what was going on with him. I wonder if it's not so much of an issue of guns and weapons but our isolation as a society.
The problem with doing things like limiting ammunition is that it's not going to stop the determined. I also don't like how it's basically going to be an arbitrary number made up by politicians, but back to the first problem.
You know how people who want over the counter medicines to make illegal drugs, so you have to give them your name and address and all that jazz before they'll let you get a pack for your obviously stuffy nose? At first those machines were just local to the store, so they'd just go to another store and buy more, and another, and another. Once the machines linked to a database, it's easier to track that. What's the chance that ALL the websites on the internet are going to agree to submitting their list of sales to a database to track how much ammunition people are buying.
Also what's stopping people from using multiple IDs and forms of payment. It's not like buying from stores where you're limited to a mostly local (driving) area. What's stopping them from opening multiple P.O. Boxes for deliveries? Nothing.
And finally, the rounds of ammunition you could buy would most likely be a random arbitrary number. This shooter bought 6000 rounds per gun. So let's pretend they made the limit 1000 rounds per month. What about those folks who do a fair amount of target shooting and need 2000 rounds per month. Do those that teach gun safety and shoot professionally have to get permits for more? What's stopping someone from just buying the limit every month and hoarding that until they have as much ammo as they want? Again, nothing. Tons of ammunition can still be obtained "legally" under this fake scenario.
I also don't like anything which can lead to the abuse of those in power against others. Like this arbitrary number. Let me give you a real world example. FEMA says you should store at least 3 days of food and water for emergencies. They presume that's long enough for help to come to you. One tiny part in the National Defense Authorization Act signed last year listed a whole bunch of characteristics which could signify a homegrown domestic terrorist. This included storing more than 7 days worth of food and water. SEVEN DAYS! I'm pretty sure most people go shopping for two weeks at a time. Okay, say this is 7 days beyond your normal food supply. I have had family members that needed a month of food, which saved them when they were without power due to a storm. Without power, FOR A MONTH. It saved them. And if something really happens which affects millions, yes, it can take a week or longer to get help. Look at Hurricane Katrina. I also know families that live in the Rocky Mountains who keep 6 months worth of food. Why? Because they never know if a winter is going to be so bad, no one can reach them. The 7 days is an arbitrary number that labels unnecessary amounts of people as terrorists.
Don't give politicians any more excuses to limit your rights than they already have!0 -
I can't believe this thread has not been shut down yet. HELLO, DIVISIVE MUCH?
There can be disagreement on any subject on any of the threads on here. Plus people for the most part are being pretty respectful to one another, there's no childish name calling going on :happy:0 -
If guns were banned then only the criminals would have them.
I am PRO-GUNS. 0 -
awesome collection, swordsmith!
nice.
:bigsmile:0 -
I imagine I will p!ss a lot of people off with this opinion, but if you're using the 2nd amendment for your argument, your argument is invalid. Most that cherry pick the constitution to suit their agenda misquote it. The 2nd amendment allowed for gun ownership, which back in the day was a, what, musket, as part of an organized community militia. Forgive my southern, but ain't none a'ya'll part o' no dang militia. Have your personal revolver for home protection, have your rifle for hunting. That's all anyone needs. Guns are like a lot of things. Just because they exist, doesn't mean you should have one. I'd like to have a nuke just so I could play US vs. China with anyone that pisses me off. See how that wouldn't be a good idea?
Next time you post, trying to avoid logical fallacies so you feel like you're winning the argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Edited because apparently basic HTML doesn't really work.0 -
If there were a gun ban before the Colorado tragedy, he would have used bombs instead.
They're relatively easy to make with common household items.0 -
If there were a gun ban before the Colorado tragedy, he would have used bombs instead.
They're relatively easy to make with common household items.
Nooooo... don't take my bleach! How will I clean?!?!0 -
I laugh when I see "military grade firearm" and then stop listening. I also lol at the "clip size' argument. This dudes drum jammed on him so he dropped the rifle.0
-
I laugh when I see "military grade firearm" and then stop listening. I also lol at the "clip size' argument. This dudes drum jammed on him so he dropped the rifle.
A drum was not in the weapon I saw laying on the ground. It had a standard 30 round mag- unless he dumped the drum and tried to switch to a normal mag. For all his planning and intelligence thank god he didnt have a clue how to clear the weapon from a jam!0 -
I laugh when I see "military grade firearm" and then stop listening. I also lol at the "clip size' argument. This dudes drum jammed on him so he dropped the rifle.
A drum was not in the weapon I saw laying on the ground. It had a standard 30 round mag- unless he dumped the drum and tried to switch to a normal mag. For all his planning and intelligence thank god he didnt have a clue how to clear the weapon from a jam!
even more reason to stop listening. At least non-factual reporting my own opinion is covered under 1A0 -
I just got a new guard dog.0 -
I'm really neither.
I understand that Amurrica LOVES guns because guns are scary and dangerous and rebellious, which is everything America thinks it is. If Americans want guns, then goddammit they will have guns! And the Bill of Rights protects that.
At the same time, I feel like there needs to be some limitation there. If you're one individual and you have 50 functioning firearms, I'm going to be concerned. I can see having a handgun for protection and a couple shotguns or rifles for hunting, but there's no reason to have a collection of guns (unless they're an actual collection, like of WWII weapons). One person cannot fire more than two guns at once, and the chances he or she would need to fire more than one at once is really negligible, so what is the point of owning so many guns?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions