'The' Gun Thread (Page 9)

As an alternative to threats of falsifying documents, background checks, accusing people of owning something they don't, and sending police on wild goose chases instead of doing what they should be doing I try to get my anti-gun friends to read a report by Guy Smith.  I usually hand them a hard copy (a little dated than the one currently out) at http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf.

It's a well written, great data and references, and a convincing argument that has changed the thinking of a lot of anti gun folks I know.  They are not dumb or idealistic or morons, they were simply misinformed many times.  I try to give them the data to make an informed decision.

THEN, if I can get them to take a firearm safety class with me, I almost always have them convinced.  They realize responsible gun owners are not nuts and VERY safe and not gun wackos out to shoot up schools.

Information/knowledge trumps violence/threats/name calling in every instance, IMO.

ETA: the actual PDF is too big to attach.  Sorry.

And that is what concerns you more than the presentation of a well written study that can be used to help the cause?  That's the TRUE pity.  I figured spreading information to help in the gun control and 2A is the goal here, not you getting credit for what or what you might not be doing.

It doesn't matter to me if other people have already put out information.  It has to continue to go out.  Or should we all stop since it was done before?

You may not take my posts seriously - which is of zero concern to me.  But plenty of other people do.

DanielG - 2013-03-15 1:38 PM

GomesBolt - 2013-03-15 4:32 PM Even though I'm strongly supportive of the 2nd Amendment, I have to say that a good many Muricans at gun ranges and gun shows on weekends are just plain crazy.

My buddy and I won't even go on the weekends to shoot because we're worried about the clowns that show up toting these weapons and they have no clue how to handle a firearm safely.

Yet you still drive on highways I wouldn't mind a firearms safety course being a requirement for HS graduation with a list of those who opt out being kept and those cannot purchase a firearm until they complete the course, at which time they are taken off the list.

Guns aren't cars.  Need to be managed based on the unique merits/problems of each.

But I agree completely with a mandatory safety class.  Why not?  Hell, mine were a blast.  Get to learn how to handle a weapon safely, learn about the law, and shoot.  Shoot a whole variety that I don't normally get to do.  That's a great day to me.

I also agree with the range that's not properly supervised by the range master.  Lots of cowboys.  There hasn't been a reported incident I can recall yet, but in Vegas there are TONS of ranges that cater to tourists to allow them to shoot handguns to full blown machine guns.  I assume the range is safe and my nervousness may be unfounded, but the thought of a bunch of tourists or foreigners that have only seen guns on TV behind a M249 SAW?  Probably the same kind of nervousness I get when I see a driver drifting lanes or a "student driver" sign.  I give a little extra space.

For good reason. This was reported when I was in the UK last week. 

For me, it speaks not to the dangers of a range master not properly supervising, but just the sheer environmental danger of being anyplace around - well thought out or not - someone discharging a firearm.

I'll pass, thanks. 

Same reason that although I love cross-country skiing and snowmobiling, I wouldn't do so again in the beautiful woods of Northern Michigan. I've seen hunters shooting from car windows while driving, from moving snowmobiles, and having had to put down their bottle of liquor to take their shot.  

Those weren't hunters,  they were idiots and criminals.....and if you saw it in person did you report it?   I've seen the videos of that kind of garbage, but that's not even remotely considered normal, and you'd have to spend many days in the woods to ever come across it.

Sadly, that's what you don't see. And what lots of people don't see, or choose not to.  

Every single time I reported it. Every single time..."couldn't find 'em, thanks, and let us know if you see it again".

It undermines the agenda. For every gun advocate that is trained and law abiding, there are some measure of those that use their rifle as a walking stick in the snow, buy one on the black market, go off the reservation in the use of said weapon, and make what should be a fairly easy argument to make incredibly hard. 

I will say this, at the risk of igniting a firestorm (after which I'll bow out quickly, as I don't have the time, energy, or passion to discuss): I saw a talking head the other day that made a phenomenal point, and I'll sum it up as such:

The current equation is not sustainable...people with guns are behaving badly, and society, in total, will not stand for it....so something needs to change, and the math is simple. You can regulate guns, or you can regulate people. Which would you choose? Guns seem like the lesser of the evils.

I tend to agree. 

And to be clear, I'm not a gun advocate or hater, although I shy away from them. 

How many times?  I have spent a great deal of my life in the woods, hunting.....I've never seen it in person.

As for your last comment.....if you don't want to create a firestorm thenwhy use it?  The FACT is, people who behave poorly with guns is such a small minority that it's hardly worth mentioning.   Go pull up stats on people behaving poorly with ANY object......see whhat you get.  Some people are stupid.....the overwhelming majority are not.  I don't believe in dumbing down so that the idiots of the world have relevance.

Let's go with 6 times, that I can recall. BTW, did the same for drunk folks on snowmobiles, but 1) they tend to solve their own issue, and 2) the result is the same. I stop short of calling out drunk ice fishers. Let 'em go. 

And to your Q: I just thought it was a prescient observation, one that people with passion on the subject might be interested in. I don't have a dog in the fight. I just won't participate. But I'm interested to see the reactions and thoughts of the folks that are interested. 

Last thing, then I'll officially be out: you mentioned that you don't advocate 'dumbing down' the standards to deal with the 'vast minority'. Two points here...do you really know it's the vast minority?  And 2nd, probably more importantly, I've gotta assume you're in the responsible x% of gun owners...trained, lawful, respectful. What about the 100-x% that aren't?  Are you willing to live with them - whether they be 20% or 70%, as beneficiaries of your position?

Again...food for thought. I'm interested in the discourse, not advocating a position myself. I see it pretty clearly, for me. 

I already live with them, and so do you.  The fact is, they are alot less dangerous then you would try to make people believe, and way less dangerous than other behavior.

On another note....there are already tens of thousands of gun laws on the books.........from your position, with the problem, ,in your mind,  being as big as it is, how do you figure putting more regulations on the books for me to follow fixes your problem?

Wowser, read the posts I've put there, unemotionally and without reactivity. 

Where did I say I advocated more regulations on the books?  This is where the 2nd A fanatics lose credibility. Any attempt at discourse is viewed as an attempt to further regulate. 

And further, read the post: I didn't say the problem was big. I say with conviction that with CNN, 24x7 media coverage and freedom of the press, the hype machines of both parties, twitter and the like, that the status quo will not remain, it can't. It may be a small problem in the scheme of things, I don't know. I just know that neither party will let it be a small problem, if it is, nor will the media. Unsustainable position, societally. 

Lastly, I now quit this discourse. Here's why: I brought up four points, to which you've responded with unrelated questions, anecdotes, and reactions: 

1) "Which would you choose?"  You responded with: I don't have to choose, I won't consider dumbing down the laws to accommodate the bottom x%.

2) I've posited that there are folks that misbehave with guns, I don't know the %. You've posited it's the vast minority, "hardly worth mentioning". Yet it's mentioned all the time. It's dismissive, like you won't entertain even understanding the point of view. Why's it mentioned?

3) I've asked what the 'vast minority" is, and there's been no factual response, and 

4) I've asked directly whether you're willing to live with the bottom x%, irresponsible gun owners, legal and illegal, and their consequences in order to support your right to carry and own as a law abiding citizen, no answer. 

Just emotional, reactionary replies. I understand your mind is made up in this matter, I'm just trying to understand. Guess I'll look elsewhere. Which is why I'm out. 

YOWSER!!!!

1.  I don't have to choose.  The Bill of Rights says I don't.  It should be easy to figure out from my response what I was saying.  If I have to spell it all out, I will....so here you go.  I choose LESS regulation.  In fact, if pushed, I choose NO regulation, since you can't show me a single incident that more regulation would have stopped.  Furthermore, the less regulation we have the less crime we've had in the last 20 years...make whatever you want out of that.

2.  The people who "misbehave" with guns are NOT worth mentioning....anymore than the people who misbehave with any object are.  They are only worth mentioning to people who want to have an emotional debate vs. one based on fact.

3.  You  never asked me "what the 'vast majority' is".  What you asked is if I really knew it was the vast majority......yes, out of 1/2 billion guns, I can safely say that the vast majority are used safely.....and so can you.  Does that answer the question you never asked?

4.  Oh, I answered......and you know my answer...I said that I already live with them, and so do you.  I also said that they are way less dangerous than you would try to make people believe.  I'll go you one further, I'm MUCH more willing to live with them than I am people who want to take away my rights........VASTLY more.

And one more.....of course you want more regulation.....that's what the entire discussion is about, and why you brought up the position of  regulating guns vs. regulating people.  The problem your side has is that we recognize the disguise.  Yes, you are anti-gun.....you just are.

I think the part your missing is that even if you do regulate the crap out of guns as is being suggested in Washington, you will still have the same bottom x% of irresponsible gun owners (legal and illegal) doing the exact same things.

For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.  Eliminate all guns, ok gun crime goes down, but knife (and other) crime goes up just as fast as gun crime goes down.

Yes, there are accidental shootings by guns that are legally owned, and if you eliminated all guns that would go down.  However, there are also many lives saved by people owning guns who defend themselves.  You'd save the accidental deaths, but kill all the people who now can't defend themselves.  Either way, it does no good overall.

Oh, and as has been mentioned over and over again.  It's all irrelevant, because it's a Constitutional right given to all of us.

At this point you cannot rid our society of 1/2 billion guns....forget it...that ship has sailed.

I have no idea whether more guns mean less crime...as you say, it's hard to quantify.  I do know this, and it is beyond dispute......more guns than ever has not led to MORE crime.  We have more guns than ever before and crime continues to drop.

The best idea is to enforce the laws we already have......but the courts are unwilling/unable to put any teeth to those laws, especially in light of the loosening of CC laws across the country....something the courts have clearly spoken on with regard to individual rights.