Guns

  • Thread starter Thread starter Talentless
  • 5,167 comments
  • 313,653 views

Which position on firearms is closest to your own?

  • I support complete illegality of civilian ownership

    Votes: 120 15.5%
  • I support strict control.

    Votes: 244 31.5%
  • I support moderate control.

    Votes: 164 21.2%
  • I support loose control.

    Votes: 81 10.5%
  • I oppose control.

    Votes: 139 17.9%
  • I am undecided.

    Votes: 27 3.5%

  • Total voters
    775
Where has this been proposed on here?
We had a discussion about that a few pages ago. Also, there's a whole thread here in the subforum about arming teachers (after another mass shooting). I'm pretty much on the same page as @Denur on this. But again, I'm also not in favor of complete bans like over here.
 
We had a discussion about that a few pages ago. Also, there's a whole thread here in the subforum about arming teachers (after another mass shooting). I'm pretty much on the same page as @Denur on this. But again, I'm also not in favor of complete bans like over here.

Arming teachers who need I remind you wish to actually protect themselves and aren't forced to do it if such a law passed, is quite different than everyone or a large populous open carrying guns. Also I still don't see it a few pages ago, please enlighten me if you wish. Other than that at this point Denur cleared the waves and I understand his perspective better, and that was all I cared about.
 
Jesus Christ you just cant let stuff go can you. Did you keep that post as a short cut on your desktop and stare at it every day just waiting to throw it back in my face a few years later?

Hardly.

Is there any reason to let it go? In the quote that follows here you reiterate the same stance afresh. I even allowed for the possibility that the staunch supporters of gun freedom that interacted with you previously had helped you understand that true freedom is having available the choice to partake or not (the former and the latter being equally important) - but it seems not.

Here - for the "permanent record"

Rights not exercised are rights forfeited.

This is a very simple concept, perhaps not something a complex higher educated philosopher such as yourself will take the time to understand.

@Blood Eagle That appears to be worded perfectly fine, with a very clear opinion. I can't imagine it's anything you'd like to hitch your wagon to.

The bolded above is really not that simple. Much more so is - Do whatever you want, as long as you're not violating any right of another. To oblige anything other than to respect the rights of others is counter to freedom.

@RC45 You may have missed it when I had stated previously, but you are welcome to PM me with the AUP un-friendly version of your opinion of my character. Granted, I'll likely get a "Why would I waste my time on a ...............?", but..... the offer's there to give an unadulterated lambasting.
 
See in order to maintain ones religious freedom, protect ones property and defends ones life you need the right to keep and bear the arms needed for that task.

I'm used to the first parts of your sentences making no sense but the second part approaches our common language, apostrophisation aside... so could you explain why lethal weapons are the "arms needed for that task"?
 
In Britain, the nobility, knighthood and church were always the arbiters of property, rights and the violence of their enforcement.

In the US - always lacking nobility, knights and state religion - the peasantry acting through democracy were always the arbiters of property, rights and violence.

So the US was born in violence, nurtured in violence, and maintained throughout its existence with violence wielded by the commons under the color of our democratic rights and duties. Gunpowder violence is embedded in our history, highest law (constitution) and in our very DNA. But not in yours.

Ain't gonna change anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
Statistically, Americans kill more Americans per year than terrorists. Even the police kill more Americans per year than terrorists do.

More guns = less Americans.

:(
 
Statistically, Americans kill more Americans per year than terrorists. Even the police kill more Americans per year than terrorists do.

More guns = less Americans.

:(
And how many people die in car accidents? More cars = less Americans.

People should not be allowed to own cars, too dangerous. Public transports and bicycles* only.

(* with a 10mph limit)
 
And how many people die in car accidents? More cars = less Americans.

People should not be allowed to own cars, too dangerous. Public transports and bicycles* only.

(* with a 10mph limit)

Heck, bathtubs kill more Americans than guns do. And that's counting accidental gun deaths, too.

Killing someone with a gun is rarely an accident. You need to load it first.

Statisticaly, Austrlians kill more Australians than terrorists.

We kill most of them with sharks, snakes and spiders. Quite happy for you to ban them, or at least restrict access to the most deadly ones.
 
Last edited:
We kill most of them with sharks, snakes and spiders. Quite happy for you to ban them, or at least restrict access to the most deadly ones.

Or just register sharks and spiders and have an extensive background check. The black market would flood with illegal spiders and Sharks with friggin' Laser beams on their friggin' heads.
 
And how many people die in car accidents? More cars = less Americans.

People should not be allowed to own cars, too dangerous. Public transports and bicycles* only.

(* with a 10mph limit)

You need a license (even if in the USA this is not really hard to get compared to other countries). You also need to follow strict rules in order to keep your license and your car even. You can't give a car as a gift to a friend for him to drive. You don't buy a car thinking one day you might need to use it to kill someone.

You need to be tested before getting a license. If you havê a por eyesight you can't drive. If you have some kinds of psycological problems or diseases you can't drive.

I could drive at + 120 km/h with no problems. But I can't because there are people who kill themselves and others at those speeds. I could drive in the city at 70km/h but I don't do it because "John" killed 3 people.

I find the comparison between mass shootings with car accidents really poor and dishonest.

The state of denial in the US is almost palpable. I just read a news article reporting a new pick since 2012 of sellings of firearms.

A state where everyone feels the need to have or carrie a gun is a state where people live in fear. And a state where people live in fear is a state where people are not free.
 
You need a license (even if in the USA this is not really hard to get compared to other countries). You also need to follow strict rules in order to keep your license and your car even. You can't give a car as a gift to a friend for him to drive. You don't buy a car thinking one day you might need to use it to kill someone.

You need to be tested before getting a license. If you havê a por eyesight you can't drive. If you have some kinds of psycological problems or diseases you can't drive.

I could drive at + 120 km/h with no problems. But I can't because there are people who kill themselves and others at those speeds. I could drive in the city at 70km/h but I don't do it because "John" killed 3 people.

I find the comparison between mass shootings with car accidents really poor and dishonest.

The state of denial in the US is almost palpable. I just read a news article reporting a new pick since 2012 of sellings of firearms.

A state where everyone feels the need to have or carrie a gun is a state where people live in fear. And a state where people live in fear is a state where people are not free.

People without a license, insurance etc still drive against the law. Drunk driving is illegal.People still do it. Driving is a privilege not a right. "Can't drive" doesn't mean you won't drive. People who follow laws wouldn't. The concept is very much the same. Drugs are illegal, kill more than anything. People still use them. Don't punish society, punish the perpetrator.
 
Rights not exercised are rights forfeited.

Actually, unalienable rights do not have to be exercised, and my right to have an abortion is severely limited to hanging around the waiting room area, at most.

My right to things can also be limited to physical abilities and financial situations, in varying situations too numerous to describe. Inability nor lack of of desire to take part does not constitute a right lost, if only on an emotional scale.

Consequently, is disagreement actually a "lost right"...or just a fear of loss?

This is a very simple concept, perhaps not something a complex higher educated philosopher such as yourself will take the time to understand.

Lay off the ego trip, already. It's annoying - if you can't play the ball, not the man, take your toys and go home.
 
People without a license, insurance etc still drive against the law. Drunk driving is illegal.People still do it. Driving is a privilege not a right. "Can't drive" doesn't mean you won't drive. People who follow laws wouldn't. The concept is very much the same. Drugs are illegal, kill more than anything. People still use them. Don't punish society, punish the perpetrator.

Some drugs are legal - alcohol is one of the worst drugs for related deaths. If government regulated those other drugs, there would be less deaths, more tax revenue and heaps less criminals.

Government policy is clearly punishing society with gun laws and it's war on drugs.

Car accidents are a different kettle of fish. Stay off the drugs, man.
 
@RC45 You may have missed it when I had stated previously, but you are welcome to PM me with the AUP un-friendly version of your opinion of my character. Granted, I'll likely get a "Why would I waste my time on a ...............?", but..... the offer's there to give an unadulterated lambasting.

How about you quit stalking me. It is borderline psychotic and probably worth reporting to the board operators and local authorities.
 
Killing someone with a gun is rarely an accident. You need to load it first.
You clearly have no idea.
Most accidents happen because someone forgot the gun is loaded and failed to check it before handling it and showing it to a friend.
 
Some drugs are legal - alcohol is one of the worst drugs for related deaths. If government regulated those other drugs, there would be less deaths, more tax revenue and heaps less criminals.

Government policy is clearly punishing society with gun laws and it's war on drugs.

Car accidents are a different kettle of fish. Stay off the drugs, man.
The question there is how exactly do you regulate something such as cocaine? Does it have any sort of positive attributes that something like weed has been argued for?
 
The question there is how exactly do you regulate something such as cocaine? Does it have any sort of positive attributes that something like weed has been argued for?

Mild local anesthetic, would probably be good to numb pain for minor dental work. But not having a legal stigma surrounding it would give addicts better access to healthcare and rehab.

Plus, the drug cartels would just become regular cartels.
 
You clearly have no idea.
Most accidents happen because someone forgot the gun is loaded and failed to check it before handling it and showing it to a friend.

Not so quick on the trigger there chap.

The above is not an accident it is negligence. Negligence. Period. No question.

You cannot forget a gun is loaded as rule #1 is treat all guns as if loaded. Period.

Anytime a firearm is handled in a situation other than bringing it to bear on a target the handler is always to check that the weapon is in an unloaded state. Always. Period.

If I am showing someone a weapon, even to a group of 100 people, before the weapon has left my possession it has been cleared and checked and demonstrated to be clear, Every time. Each time the weapon comes back into my possession I will clear it and check the chamber. Each person receiving the weapon is also expected to clear the weapon and check the chamber. Always. Every time. Period. Without exception.

It is not possible to forget a gun is loaded if you treat all firearms as loaded. Period.

Therefore the 'accident' in accidental shooting is not related to forgetting the weapon was loaded but would be someone reason.

Reasons such as over penetration. Backstop failure. Accidental discharge where an operators finger was on the trigger before the weapon was pointed at the target. A semi-auto that suffered a mechanical failure resulting in a run away firing event. These might be accidental discharges.

But shooting someone by forgetting a weapon is loaded is not possible if all weapons are treated as loaded.
 
Last edited:
The state of denial in the US is almost palpable. I just read a news article reporting a new pick since 2012 of sellings of firearms.

A state where everyone feels the need to have or carrie a gun is a state where people live in fear. And a state where people live in fear is a state where people are not free.

Garbage. I don't carry a gun because I'm afraid of something, I carry a gun because it is an effective tool. I carry an extra water pump, serpentine belt, jumper cables and various other tools in my truck, not because I'm afraid it will break down, but because I will be prepared on the off chance something does happen. Same thing with my firearm, I don't carry it because I live my life afraid that every corner I turn I'll be forced to use it, I carry it simply because if someone ever threatens me or my family, I will at least have some opportunity to protect them or myself.

I know this may sound unbelievable to you, especially since I'm from Kentucky where it isn't uncommon to see people open carrying their handguns, but I have not once ever felt unsafe when I have gone out somewhere either by myself or with my family, even when I've seen various people either open carrying or printing, guns just aren't an issue here. But obviously you know much more about Kentucky or America than the people who actually live here.
 
A state where everyone feels the need to have or carrie a gun is a state where people live in fear. And a state where people live in fear is a state where people are not free.
I'd argue that being able to do something about that fear is more relevant to freedom than being afraid. Also, it only makes sense to take precaution, this sounds no different than buying a house alarm after hearing about a breaking in your neighborhood.
 
I don't carry it because I live my life afraid that every corner I turn I'll be forced to use it, I carry it simply because if someone ever threatens me or my family, I will at least have some opportunity to protect them or myself.

Many might call that living in fear of the ultimate threat and therefore carrying the ultimate retaliation.

A state where everyone feels the need to have or carrie a gun is a state where people live in fear.

I'd have to agree with this for the most part.

But obviously you know much more about Kentucky or America than the people who actually live here.

Well, you just described it...
 
A state where everyone feels the need to have or carrie a gun is a state where people live in fear. And a state where people live in fear is a state where people are not free.
Where is this place where everyone feels like they have to carry a gun and where people live in fear? Source please.
 
Back