Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pro Gun-Anti Gun we all want the same thing

kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 3:56:27 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I'm not sure why this isn't more abundantly clear to the general public. Apparently thinking for yourself isn't as natural as it should be. We assume and rely on the government to fix all of our problems.
Here's how I see it, correct me if I'm wrong, I know you will anyway
(non hunting and sporting issues fyi)

Anti Gun; they don't want people to have guns because they are afraid of what they will be used for.

Pro Gun; they want guns for protection because they are afraid of what might happen.

I understand both sides but what do both have in common, fear of violence. This should be painfully obvious. Where there is little to no crime the gun carry rate is probably pretty low as they don't have the fear and don't feel the need. It's not that comfortable to carry, it's not fun so if someone doesn't feel the need to do it, they wouldn't imo. You can't account for the unpredictable outliers, but I believe if violence was reduced so would new gun ownership and people carrying in public. The two spikes in gun sales was thanks to obama causing fear by giving people the impression (wrong or right) they would loose their rights. I don't want people to own guns out of fear, that's not a good reason, I'm sure both sides would agree with that. We need to focus on reducing crime, all crime the rest will take care of itself.
again you can't account for outliers so keep that in mind when you start with the "what ifs" and other fringe statements.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 4:13:10 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 3:56:27 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
I'm not sure why this isn't more abundantly clear to the general public. Apparently thinking for yourself isn't as natural as it should be. We assume and rely on the government to fix all of our problems.
Here's how I see it, correct me if I'm wrong, I know you will anyway
(non hunting and sporting issues fyi)

Anti Gun; they don't want people to have guns because they are afraid of what they will be used for.

Pro Gun; they want guns for protection because they are afraid of what might happen.

I understand both sides but what do both have in common, fear of violence. This should be painfully obvious. Where there is little to no crime the gun carry rate is probably pretty low as they don't have the fear and don't feel the need. It's not that comfortable to carry, it's not fun so if someone doesn't feel the need to do it, they wouldn't imo. You can't account for the unpredictable outliers, but I believe if violence was reduced so would new gun ownership and people carrying in public. The two spikes in gun sales was thanks to obama causing fear by giving people the impression (wrong or right) they would loose their rights. I don't want people to own guns out of fear, that's not a good reason, I'm sure both sides would agree with that. We need to focus on reducing crime, all crime the rest will take care of itself.
again you can't account for outliers so keep that in mind when you start with the "what ifs" and other fringe statements.

There are plenty of places for both sides to find common ground. Slight differences in perception lead to arguments, but they are there.

One perception problem I have have worked hard to address is the notion that it is a violent country and getting more violent. The opposite is true. Crime goes down year over year. We can bicker about what is the cause, but that is reality.

Crime in city's. Well, I have lived in Chicago for a good deal of my life. I also have lived in California (central cost) and Denver. City's have highly pocketed violent areas. If you are not generally inclined to spend any time in these areas (not buying drugs etc.) a city is actually MORE secure than a rural area (less random). Walking down Michigan Ave at night by yourself you WILL NOT be mugged with hundreds of people around you.

Last point. While I agree that there are people who live in crime areas, or perhaps have to work in high crime areas, many who choose to carry do so out of irrational fear, and other factors. The other factors are even MORE irrational. Machismo, show, bling. Not good reasons to carry a weapon around.

Regardless. The truth is, on such a contentious subject, when probed, gun supporters and their opposition are not as far apart as it seems. When change does happen, it will be (by necessity) the gun-supporters that design and shepherd the change.
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 4:14:00 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 3:56:27 PM, kevin24018 wrote:

Anti Gun; they don't want people to have guns because they are afraid of what they will be used for.

Pro Gun; they want guns for protection because they are afraid of what might happen.

I agree with what you're saying, but here's the thing: guns are substantially more likely to be used for violent crime than they are for preventing violent crime. In other words, the chances of criminals using guns for the wrong purposes are far greater than the chances of "law-abiding citizens" using them for the right purposes. What anti-gun people are scared of is ultimately much more realistic than what pro-gun people are scared of, and that's why we need gun control laws.
Call me King Pootie Tang.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 5:06:47 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 4:14:00 PM, spacetime wrote:
At 12/30/2015 3:56:27 PM, kevin24018 wrote:

Anti Gun; they don't want people to have guns because they are afraid of what they will be used for.

Pro Gun; they want guns for protection because they are afraid of what might happen.

I agree with what you're saying, but here's the thing: guns are substantially more likely to be used for violent crime than they are for preventing violent crime. In other words, the chances of criminals using guns for the wrong purposes are far greater than the chances of "law-abiding citizens" using them for the right purposes. What anti-gun people are scared of is ultimately much more realistic than what pro-gun people are scared of, and that's why we need gun control laws.

More laws because the current ones don't work? More laws that criminals will follow? Do you recall Oklahoma and Boston what guns where used there? Shouldn't we pass more laws to prevent people making bombs? How about stopping illegal drugs, more laws for that too please. Your narrow focus is what's preventing change. Why don't you want to reduce violence? I do. You can't see that calling for more gun control laws and not saying you want to reduce all violence is like saying you don't mind if people get killed as long it's not with a gun. Great case in point is the black man who was interviewed about a police shooting and was protesting. Basically when asked he said that he's upset because it as a police officer and that murders by non police offers was just a fact of life. So how about you open your eyes, take off the blinders, stop talking about more laws that won't work and focus on cultural change and a reduction in all violence for everyone? Obama has sky rocketed gun sales 2 times. Like in Australia I'm certain people have hid or buried guns so even going house to house won't matter. It's too late you can't put the genie back in the bottle with more laws. Check out youtube there's lots of videos on how to make your own guns. then there's 3d printers......
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 5:16:58 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
There are plenty of places for both sides to find common ground. Slight differences in perception lead to arguments, but they are there.

One perception problem I have have worked hard to address is the notion that it is a violent country and getting more violent. The opposite is true. Crime goes down year over year. We can bicker about what is the cause, but that is reality.

Crime in city's. Well, I have lived in Chicago for a good deal of my life. I also have lived in California (central cost) and Denver. City's have highly pocketed violent areas. If you are not generally inclined to spend any time in these areas (not buying drugs etc.) a city is actually MORE secure than a rural area (less random). Walking down Michigan Ave at night by yourself you WILL NOT be mugged with hundreds of people around you.

Last point. While I agree that there are people who live in crime areas, or perhaps have to work in high crime areas, many who choose to carry do so out of irrational fear, and other factors. The other factors are even MORE irrational. Machismo, show, bling. Not good reasons to carry a weapon around.

Regardless. The truth is, on such a contentious subject, when probed, gun supporters and their opposition are not as far apart as it seems. When change does happen, it will be (by necessity) the gun-supporters that design and shepherd the change.

thanks for sharing I haven't lived in a big city so I value your perspective and that actually does make me feel better. Agreed there is irrational views on both sides because it really is about feelings and not facts, but that's the flaw of being human, oh if we could all be Vulcan lol. I strongly urge everyone regardless of their position that cultural change is what both sides want and that is where the focus should be. There have been whole fire arms made with 3d printers. While it's not currently cost effective I believe it will be one day. There will be no need or use of back ground checks, magazine size limits or even fully automatic bans because people will just make what they want. Although crude, homemade gun have been around for a very long time. People will always find a way around a law if they so choose, synthetic drugs as an example they weren't immediately illegal, some of the so called "herbs" We try to educate people in the danger of drugs but you will always have those that choose to use them anyway same is true for everything. But certainly we could be doing a better job of it.
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 5:38:48 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 5:06:47 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/30/2015 4:14:00 PM, spacetime wrote:
At 12/30/2015 3:56:27 PM, kevin24018 wrote:

Anti Gun; they don't want people to have guns because they are afraid of what they will be used for.

Pro Gun; they want guns for protection because they are afraid of what might happen.

I agree with what you're saying, but here's the thing: guns are substantially more likely to be used for violent crime than they are for preventing violent crime. In other words, the chances of criminals using guns for the wrong purposes are far greater than the chances of "law-abiding citizens" using them for the right purposes. What anti-gun people are scared of is ultimately much more realistic than what pro-gun people are scared of, and that's why we need gun control laws.

More laws because the current ones don't work? More laws that criminals will follow? Do you recall Oklahoma and Boston what guns where used there? Shouldn't we pass more laws to prevent people making bombs? How about stopping illegal drugs, more laws for that too please. Your narrow focus is what's preventing change. Why don't you want to reduce violence? I do. You can't see that calling for more gun control laws and not saying you want to reduce all violence is like saying you don't mind if people get killed as long it's not with a gun. Great case in point is the black man who was interviewed about a police shooting and was protesting. Basically when asked he said that he's upset because it as a police officer and that murders by non police offers was just a fact of life. So how about you open your eyes, take off the blinders, stop talking about more laws that won't work and focus on cultural change and a reduction in all violence for everyone? Obama has sky rocketed gun sales 2 times. Like in Australia I'm certain people have hid or buried guns so even going house to house won't matter. It's too late you can't put the genie back in the bottle with more laws. Check out youtube there's lots of videos on how to make your own guns. then there's 3d printers......

Yep, I was expecting this exact response. "Current laws don't work!!!11!1!!1!". It is no surprise to anyone that the poorly-designed gun control laws we currently have in place have failed. The primary reason for their failure is that they completely ignore the "private sales" loophole (which is how the majority of criminals get their guns). There are more effective policy proposals out there, however, and those are the ones which anti-gun people want implemented. I personally am a proponent of a ban on private sales, along with a mandatory gun registration policy (the latter makes the former possible to enforce). I also support treating gun ownership in general like we treat concealed-carry permits. "Typical license requirements include residency, minimum age, submitting fingerprints, passing a computerized instant background check (or a more comprehensive manual background check), attending a certified handgun/firearm safety class, passing a practical qualification demonstrating handgun proficiency, and paying a required fee." [https://en.wikipedia.org...].
Call me King Pootie Tang.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 5:41:54 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 5:16:58 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
There are plenty of places for both sides to find common ground. Slight differences in perception lead to arguments, but they are there.

One perception problem I have have worked hard to address is the notion that it is a violent country and getting more violent. The opposite is true. Crime goes down year over year. We can bicker about what is the cause, but that is reality.

Crime in city's. Well, I have lived in Chicago for a good deal of my life. I also have lived in California (central cost) and Denver. City's have highly pocketed violent areas. If you are not generally inclined to spend any time in these areas (not buying drugs etc.) a city is actually MORE secure than a rural area (less random). Walking down Michigan Ave at night by yourself you WILL NOT be mugged with hundreds of people around you.

Last point. While I agree that there are people who live in crime areas, or perhaps have to work in high crime areas, many who choose to carry do so out of irrational fear, and other factors. The other factors are even MORE irrational. Machismo, show, bling. Not good reasons to carry a weapon around.

Regardless. The truth is, on such a contentious subject, when probed, gun supporters and their opposition are not as far apart as it seems. When change does happen, it will be (by necessity) the gun-supporters that design and shepherd the change.

thanks for sharing I haven't lived in a big city so I value your perspective and that actually does make me feel better. Agreed there is irrational views on both sides because it really is about feelings and not facts, but that's the flaw of being human, oh if we could all be Vulcan lol. I strongly urge everyone regardless of their position that cultural change is what both sides want and that is where the focus should be. There have been whole fire arms made with 3d printers. While it's not currently cost effective I believe it will be one day. There will be no need or use of back ground checks, magazine size limits or even fully automatic bans because people will just make what they want. Although crude, homemade gun have been around for a very long time. People will always find a way around a law if they so choose, synthetic drugs as an example they weren't immediately illegal, some of the so called "herbs" We try to educate people in the danger of drugs but you will always have those that choose to use them anyway same is true for everything. But certainly we could be doing a better job of it.

That statement has gotten me in more trouble in gun arguments, and I am happy to see it from a gun-supporter. It IS about emotion from both sides. Endless stat wars are meaningless - they do nothing to move the needle one tick! When you strip away all the arguments, it is about emotional response.

I also agree that most laws limiting mechanical aspects are difficult to make useful. There is an entire thing about the "Bullet button" in this latest California shooting. The concept was OK, but working around the issue is child play. So, the effectiveness of the law is only for people who have no inclination to break the law.

Change "hearts and minds". That is the way forward. Dealing with criminality is, to me, a normal course of concern for any society. Where I have a problem is endlessly romanticizing the gun as some magical solution to a problem that is largely NOT a common problem. Me, my wife, my family and most friends. None of us carry a gun. We aren't assaulted on a regular basis. Have I ever been robbed? Yea! So what. Take some crap, I will buy more. I highly doubt a gun would have saved my watch and cash on hand.
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 5:58:36 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 5:41:54 PM, TBR wrote:

Where I have a problem is endlessly romanticizing the gun as some magical solution to a problem that is largely NOT a common problem.

I agree that America's gun culture is pretty ridiculous, but how exactly do you plan on changing that with words alone? I've talked to some of the so-called "gun nuts". There's no reasoning with them. I was astonished to learn that many of them actually believe that an armed rebellion against the "tyrannous" US government is imminent; they're literally living in some sort of Wild West fantasy. Personally, I don't want to even be near people like that, much less attempt to talk them out of their idiotic paranoia.
Call me King Pootie Tang.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 6:03:39 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 5:58:36 PM, spacetime wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:41:54 PM, TBR wrote:

Where I have a problem is endlessly romanticizing the gun as some magical solution to a problem that is largely NOT a common problem.

I agree that America's gun culture is pretty ridiculous, but how exactly do you plan on changing that with words alone? I've talked to some of the so-called "gun nuts". There's no reasoning with them. I was astonished to learn that many of them actually believe that an armed rebellion against the "tyrannous" US government is imminent; they're literally living in some sort of Wild West fantasy. Personally, I don't want to even be near people like that, much less attempt to talk them out of their idiotic paranoia.

Agreed. The conspiracy's run wild in their imaginations - including esoteric scenarios where they defend packs of frightened children huddled in a... whatever. The problem is, adding a background check enhancement only plays further into the delusion. As pointed out in this thread, there are so many damn guns in this country, reducing them by law or by choice will take generations. What is the proper path forward? The one where us liberals make additional laws that lead to them stocking up more? How about the one where work to push the burden over the fence to the very supporters of guns? Now, I will help and support any of their efforts, but until we take a new tact on this, I doubt we are going to make much ground.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 6:14:01 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I was in a conversation with a gun supporter on this site. He was writing this scenario out.

"So, when three guys break into your house, with some sort of Clock Work Orange plan, and..." A Clockwork Orange was a great book, and one of my favorite movies ever. I am not adding a gun to my household because of this highly unlikely screenplay. Its simply paranoia run amok. Could it ever happen, sure, OK. Will I ever win the lottery? I'm not adding additional risk to my family with a gun in the same way I am not selling all my property to invest in Mega Millions tickets. Its foolish.

Lets change the narrative first. Stop antagonizing gun supporters. Well, we can antagonize for fun and sport, but not if the intent is to affect change.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 6:31:35 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 3:56:27 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
I'm not sure why this isn't more abundantly clear to the general public. Apparently thinking for yourself isn't as natural as it should be. We assume and rely on the government to fix all of our problems.
Here's how I see it, correct me if I'm wrong, I know you will anyway
(non hunting and sporting issues fyi)

Anti Gun; they don't want people to have guns because they are afraid of what they will be used for.

Pro Gun; they want guns for protection because they are afraid of what might happen.

I understand both sides but what do both have in common, fear of violence. This should be painfully obvious. Where there is little to no crime the gun carry rate is probably pretty low as they don't have the fear and don't feel the need. It's not that comfortable to carry, it's not fun so if someone doesn't feel the need to do it, they wouldn't imo. You can't account for the unpredictable outliers, but I believe if violence was reduced so would new gun ownership and people carrying in public. The two spikes in gun sales was thanks to obama causing fear by giving people the impression (wrong or right) they would loose their rights. I don't want people to own guns out of fear, that's not a good reason, I'm sure both sides would agree with that. We need to focus on reducing crime, all crime the rest will take care of itself.
again you can't account for outliers so keep that in mind when you start with the "what ifs" and other fringe statements.

The way you frame this is too sensible. Unfortunately the gun debate is very much like the abortion debate.

In both cases there is understanding that government can restrict and regulate, but it can't eliminate.

On one side is a group that wants to eliminate and would take every opportunity to incrementally strip individual rights. The other side feels that any restriction would as the slippery slope that eventually eliminates the right.

In other words both issues are managed by the fringes and people who want common sense approach that is reasonable are pushed out of the discussion.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 6:35:26 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 6:03:39 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:58:36 PM, spacetime wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:41:54 PM, TBR wrote:

Where I have a problem is endlessly romanticizing the gun as some magical solution to a problem that is largely NOT a common problem.

I agree that America's gun culture is pretty ridiculous, but how exactly do you plan on changing that with words alone? I've talked to some of the so-called "gun nuts". There's no reasoning with them. I was astonished to learn that many of them actually believe that an armed rebellion against the "tyrannous" US government is imminent; they're literally living in some sort of Wild West fantasy. Personally, I don't want to even be near people like that, much less attempt to talk them out of their idiotic paranoia.

Agreed. The conspiracy's run wild in their imaginations - including esoteric scenarios where they defend packs of frightened children huddled in a... whatever. The problem is, adding a background check enhancement only plays further into the delusion. As pointed out in this thread, there are so many damn guns in this country, reducing them by law or by choice will take generations. What is the proper path forward? The one where us liberals make additional laws that lead to them stocking up more? How about the one where work to push the burden over the fence to the very supporters of guns? Now, I will help and support any of their efforts, but until we take a new tact on this, I doubt we are going to make much ground.

certainly the media and film industry who has made billions off of romanticizing guns is probably the biggest influence for what we have today.
The proper path forward is to drop the labels and name calling, work with the common ground reduce the perceived fear, whether it's real or imagined is irrelevant, reduce all crime. Pretty simple really. Pushing the burden as you say I don't agree with. Everyone should assume as much burden as they can carry. Again using terms like gun nuts etc only divides us, if you truly believe you can't reason with them, whomever "they/them" are don't try. So if people think the government is out to get them, so what? You aren't going to change their mind probably and it still doesn't address the violence/crime issue. We get too easily distracted with all these tangents like a cat chasing a laser pointer.
Lots of guns are recovered with the serial numbers filed off, again 3d printers would negate any registration, back ground check or whatever law you can think of. 3d printing is only one of two current technologies that allow production of physical items drawn in a computer, there's a laser resin system being developed. With new polymers and ceramics being developed you won't need metal. Even today there are plenty of firearms that contain very little metal.
to the argument of more laws, the fbi states that violent crime is decreasing
https://www.fbi.gov...
"When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2013 estimated violent crime total was 12.3 percent below the 2009 level and 14.5 percent below the 2004 level"
if there was a law when enacted has an impact in these stats that would be a huge and strong argument for more laws, if that existed we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'm sure it's not too difficult to look a what laws went into effect and then look at the crime rate to see if there was any noticeable changes. Again if this was true that would be the platform for those in favor of more laws and since no one uses that as an argument is must not exist.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 6:40:39 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 6:14:01 PM, TBR wrote:
I was in a conversation with a gun supporter on this site. He was writing this scenario out.

"So, when three guys break into your house, with some sort of Clock Work Orange plan, and..." A Clockwork Orange was a great book, and one of my favorite movies ever. I am not adding a gun to my household because of this highly unlikely screenplay. Its simply paranoia run amok. Could it ever happen, sure, OK. Will I ever win the lottery? I'm not adding additional risk to my family with a gun in the same way I am not selling all my property to invest in Mega Millions tickets. Its foolish.

Lets change the narrative first. Stop antagonizing gun supporters. Well, we can antagonize for fun and sport, but not if the intent is to affect change.

agreed, makes perfect sense. Honestly with the 2 huge gun purchase surges I was down right scared, knee jerk purchases of firearms is NOT what any of us want. However even with those massive sales, it hasn't affected the crime stats as far as I can tell, if this is true then it would seem more guns don't make us safer and they don't make us unsafer either. So to beat my drum let's reduce violence and crime together!
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 6:43:55 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 6:35:26 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/30/2015 6:03:39 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:58:36 PM, spacetime wrote:
At 12/30/2015 5:41:54 PM, TBR wrote:

Where I have a problem is endlessly romanticizing the gun as some magical solution to a problem that is largely NOT a common problem.

I agree that America's gun culture is pretty ridiculous, but how exactly do you plan on changing that with words alone? I've talked to some of the so-called "gun nuts". There's no reasoning with them. I was astonished to learn that many of them actually believe that an armed rebellion against the "tyrannous" US government is imminent; they're literally living in some sort of Wild West fantasy. Personally, I don't want to even be near people like that, much less attempt to talk them out of their idiotic paranoia.

Agreed. The conspiracy's run wild in their imaginations - including esoteric scenarios where they defend packs of frightened children huddled in a... whatever. The problem is, adding a background check enhancement only plays further into the delusion. As pointed out in this thread, there are so many damn guns in this country, reducing them by law or by choice will take generations. What is the proper path forward? The one where us liberals make additional laws that lead to them stocking up more? How about the one where work to push the burden over the fence to the very supporters of guns? Now, I will help and support any of their efforts, but until we take a new tact on this, I doubt we are going to make much ground.

certainly the media and film industry who has made billions off of romanticizing guns is probably the biggest influence for what we have today.
The proper path forward is to drop the labels and name calling, work with the common ground reduce the perceived fear, whether it's real or imagined is irrelevant, reduce all crime. Pretty simple really. Pushing the burden as you say I don't agree with. Everyone should assume as much burden as they can carry. Again using terms like gun nuts etc only divides us, if you truly believe you can't reason with them, whomever "they/them" are don't try. So if people think the government is out to get them, so what? You aren't going to change their mind probably and it still doesn't address the violence/crime issue. We get too easily distracted with all these tangents like a cat chasing a laser pointer.
Lots of guns are recovered with the serial numbers filed off, again 3d printers would negate any registration, back ground check or whatever law you can think of. 3d printing is only one of two current technologies that allow production of physical items drawn in a computer, there's a laser resin system being developed. With new polymers and ceramics being developed you won't need metal. Even today there are plenty of firearms that contain very little metal.
to the argument of more laws, the fbi states that violent crime is decreasing
https://www.fbi.gov...
"When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2013 estimated violent crime total was 12.3 percent below the 2009 level and 14.5 percent below the 2004 level"
if there was a law when enacted has an impact in these stats that would be a huge and strong argument for more laws, if that existed we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'm sure it's not too difficult to look a what laws went into effect and then look at the crime rate to see if there was any noticeable changes. Again if this was true that would be the platform for those in favor of more laws and since no one uses that as an argument is must not exist.

OK, first, I have not called anyone a gun-nut. Not that I have never used that term, I have, but not with anyone who is being rational.

To crime. Yea, we all work to reduce crime. You said somewhere else something like "liberals don't want to <blah><blah><blah>". That is silly, liberals and conservatives both want to reduce crime. What is the level you will feel safe? When it is at zero? Crime is NOT a huge factor for most Americans.

Last bit. On "Hollywood". Yup, its a problem. Just as much as the fear mongers in talk radio, the politicians from the right and the NRA who say "they are going to take all your guns", all of them. The people who push insane fearful visions a society that simply does not exist. The ones that push that the you will have to fight your government because of the sitting president. ALL OF THEM!
spacetime
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 6:47:11 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 6:14:01 PM, TBR wrote:
I was in a conversation with a gun supporter on this site. He was writing this scenario out.

"So, when three guys break into your house, with some sort of Clock Work Orange plan, and..." A Clockwork Orange was a great book, and one of my favorite movies ever. I am not adding a gun to my household because of this highly unlikely screenplay. Its simply paranoia run amok. Could it ever happen, sure, OK. Will I ever win the lottery? I'm not adding additional risk to my family with a gun in the same way I am not selling all my property to invest in Mega Millions tickets. Its foolish.

LOL. Agreed. Any time you have to rely on the possibility of a movie-like scenario to justify a position, you should probably reconsider your reasoning. Same goes for advocates of torture, nuclear armamentation, apocalypse planning, etc.


Lets change the narrative first. Stop antagonizing gun supporters. Well, we can antagonize for fun and sport, but not if the intent is to affect change.

True, antagonizing them isn't a good way to go about the "cultural change" route. I'm just skeptical of that route in general; I prefer a policy approach because it gets results quicker, but you're correct in saying that something like mandatory gun registration is going to exacerbate their anti-government paranoia. There are no easy solutions to this problem.
Call me King Pootie Tang.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 6:49:14 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 6:40:39 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 12/30/2015 6:14:01 PM, TBR wrote:
I was in a conversation with a gun supporter on this site. He was writing this scenario out.

"So, when three guys break into your house, with some sort of Clock Work Orange plan, and..." A Clockwork Orange was a great book, and one of my favorite movies ever. I am not adding a gun to my household because of this highly unlikely screenplay. Its simply paranoia run amok. Could it ever happen, sure, OK. Will I ever win the lottery? I'm not adding additional risk to my family with a gun in the same way I am not selling all my property to invest in Mega Millions tickets. Its foolish.

Lets change the narrative first. Stop antagonizing gun supporters. Well, we can antagonize for fun and sport, but not if the intent is to affect change.

agreed, makes perfect sense. Honestly with the 2 huge gun purchase surges I was down right scared, knee jerk purchases of firearms is NOT what any of us want. However even with those massive sales, it hasn't affected the crime stats as far as I can tell, if this is true then it would seem more guns don't make us safer and they don't make us unsafer either. So to beat my drum let's reduce violence and crime together!

Just to the stats. One issue common the the stats war is we live in a very complex society. Economic issues weigh higher on crime rates than gun numbers. Just pulling one stat out and insisting that it has meaning (for either side) is almost pointless. I like stats, but when applied to this discussion, they get muddled.

Addressing criminal activity has to have more depth than "get a gun"
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 7:10:47 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Just to the stats. One issue common the the stats war is we live in a very complex society. Economic issues weigh higher on crime rates than gun numbers. Just pulling one stat out and insisting that it has meaning (for either side) is almost pointless. I like stats, but when applied to this discussion, they get muddled.

Addressing criminal activity has to have more depth than "get a gun"

agreed at best the stats show trends and at the very least the crime rate isn't going up, I was addressing the previous poster who used "gun nuts" it all gets jumbled together sorry about that. There is a music and music video culture that glorifies gangs, thug behavior, drugs and guns. So when you lump everyone into a term like "gun culture" those of us who are law abiding, responsible members of society do get defensive when there's talk of laws which will affect us in a potentially negative way when we haven't and would not do anything wrong. In the guise of public safety. Have you looked at the number of felons who have attempted to "legally" purchase a gun only to be flagged at the background check and denied? Then look how many where actually arrested for attempting to make the purchase because it was illegal for them to do so, the number is shockingly small. I think there was a hearing on it, I'm sure it would be easy to find. Anyway before anyone talks about more laws, I would ask anyone who would propose such an idea to research what already exists and it is being used properly, consistently and effectively? I would bet you'd find that answer is no. This is why so many are opposed to more and new laws because no one can show that they would work either. As a matter of fact many of the interviews of political leaders have admitted that the new proposed bans/laws would not have had any affect of the tragedies that have transpired.
Registration and background checks for personal sales wouldn't have stopped any of the tragedies, all those would do is make it easier (maybe) to find out who committed the crime, but again those weren't useful or needed in these instances.
How about that kid who killed 4 people driving drunk, gets probation because he as spoiled by his parents. You think we trust and have faith in laws or the legal system?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 7:22:48 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 7:10:47 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
Just to the stats. One issue common the the stats war is we live in a very complex society. Economic issues weigh higher on crime rates than gun numbers. Just pulling one stat out and insisting that it has meaning (for either side) is almost pointless. I like stats, but when applied to this discussion, they get muddled.

Addressing criminal activity has to have more depth than "get a gun"

agreed at best the stats show trends and at the very least the crime rate isn't going up, I was addressing the previous poster who used "gun nuts" it all gets jumbled together sorry about that. There is a music and music video culture that glorifies gangs, thug behavior, drugs and guns. So when you lump everyone into a term like "gun culture" those of us who are law abiding, responsible members of society do get defensive when there's talk of laws which will affect us in a potentially negative way when we haven't and would not do anything wrong. In the guise of public safety. Have you looked at the number of felons who have attempted to "legally" purchase a gun only to be flagged at the background check and denied? Then look how many where actually arrested for attempting to make the purchase because it was illegal for them to do so, the number is shockingly small. I think there was a hearing on it, I'm sure it would be easy to find. Anyway before anyone talks about more laws, I would ask anyone who would propose such an idea to research what already exists and it is being used properly, consistently and effectively? I would bet you'd find that answer is no. This is why so many are opposed to more and new laws because no one can show that they would work either. As a matter of fact many of the interviews of political leaders have admitted that the new proposed bans/laws would not have had any affect of the tragedies that have transpired.
Registration and background checks for personal sales wouldn't have stopped any of the tragedies, all those would do is make it easier (maybe) to find out who committed the crime, but again those weren't useful or needed in these instances.
How about that kid who killed 4 people driving drunk, gets probation because he as spoiled by his parents. You think we trust and have faith in laws or the legal system?

Watch this video on the bluet button.

I was discussing it with a business partner / investor. He ex-law enforcement, ex-military and knows guns. He had never known of the thing, and we each had about the same response. Its silliness all around. Silly (ineffectual) law, silly to work around, silly to expect it to do anything for preventing carnage. A fail from all directions.

When gun-supporters get (even approach) the table with some ideas, we might be able to get somewhere. In the meantime, most of the talk and proposed legislation will backfire. I like tech. I am a technical guy. Tech in guns sounds like a terrific thing to me. Look how badly that backfired with the gun-supporters.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 7:39:39 PM
Posted: 11 months ago

Watch this video on the bluet button.


I was discussing it with a business partner / investor. He ex-law enforcement, ex-military and knows guns. He had never known of the thing, and we each had about the same response. Its silliness all around. Silly (ineffectual) law, silly to work around, silly to expect it to do anything for preventing carnage. A fail from all directions.

When gun-supporters get (even approach) the table with some ideas, we might be able to get somewhere. In the meantime, most of the talk and proposed legislation will backfire. I like tech. I am a technical guy. Tech in guns sounds like a terrific thing to me. Look how badly that backfired with the gun-supporters.

omg wow just wow, California that explains a lot lol, yeah I like tech too especially if it makes things safer in a sensible and practicable way. Smart guns in theory are a good idea, but a system would have to be developed where they would work as they should and no one but the owner could override them, that would have to include the government, although no one would believe it and would feel threatened the government could deactivate them etc. But to the video, those silly ideas just further divide both sides and drives a deeper wedge between. Have you see the triggers and the bumpfire type stocks? Full automatic firearms require a special permit and are extremely expensive, but yeah there's ways around that too. Bottom line is no one wants firearms,knives,bombs,poison etc etc in the hands of criminals, we just don't want crime, that's what I wish we could hear from both sides, we don't want crime let's do something about that.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 7:54:23 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 7:39:39 PM, kevin24018 wrote:

Watch this video on the bluet button.


I was discussing it with a business partner / investor. He ex-law enforcement, ex-military and knows guns. He had never known of the thing, and we each had about the same response. Its silliness all around. Silly (ineffectual) law, silly to work around, silly to expect it to do anything for preventing carnage. A fail from all directions.

When gun-supporters get (even approach) the table with some ideas, we might be able to get somewhere. In the meantime, most of the talk and proposed legislation will backfire. I like tech. I am a technical guy. Tech in guns sounds like a terrific thing to me. Look how badly that backfired with the gun-supporters.

omg wow just wow, California that explains a lot lol, yeah I like tech too especially if it makes things safer in a sensible and practicable way. Smart guns in theory are a good idea, but a system would have to be developed where they would work as they should and no one but the owner could override them, that would have to include the government, although no one would believe it and would feel threatened the government could deactivate them etc. But to the video, those silly ideas just further divide both sides and drives a deeper wedge between. Have you see the triggers and the bumpfire type stocks? Full automatic firearms require a special permit and are extremely expensive, but yeah there's ways around that too. Bottom line is no one wants firearms,knives,bombs,poison etc etc in the hands of criminals, we just don't want crime, that's what I wish we could hear from both sides, we don't want crime let's do something about that.

The initial law was well meaning. The first workaround from the gun manufactures, the little metal ring, made it almost useless, then a kid with a magnet makes it almost exactly what it is WITHOUT the law. So, yea. Worthless. But, not people like yourself will say "typical California" and be right!

On the tech score. I got into it back some time ago with a gun guy. His bottom line was, there could be NO tech in guns until there is NO potential failure. This is an unattainable goal. Add any additional component to any system and potential failure goes UP. So... We need to come to some ground. Someplace. Somewhere between safety mechanisms that are bypassed by teenagers and not accepting anything that might infringe on your enjoyment of bump-firing your AR into the abandoned refrigerator!
IntellectVsSpirit5000
Posts: 1,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 8:10:50 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 3:56:27 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
I'm not sure why this isn't more abundantly clear to the general public. Apparently thinking for yourself isn't as natural as it should be. We assume and rely on the government to fix all of our problems.
Here's how I see it, correct me if I'm wrong, I know you will anyway
(non hunting and sporting issues fyi)

Anti Gun; they don't want people to have guns because they are afraid of what they will be used for.

Pro Gun; they want guns for protection because they are afraid of what might happen.

I understand both sides but what do both have in common, fear of violence. This should be painfully obvious. Where there is little to no crime the gun carry rate is probably pretty low as they don't have the fear and don't feel the need. It's not that comfortable to carry, it's not fun so if someone doesn't feel the need to do it, they wouldn't imo. You can't account for the unpredictable outliers, but I believe if violence was reduced so would new gun ownership and people carrying in public. The two spikes in gun sales was thanks to obama causing fear by giving people the impression (wrong or right) they would loose their rights. I don't want people to own guns out of fear, that's not a good reason, I'm sure both sides would agree with that. We need to focus on reducing crime, all crime the rest will take care of itself.
again you can't account for outliers so keep that in mind when you start with the "what ifs" and other fringe statements.

I want a gun so I can shoot my eye out, ride it like a stick horse, and to cast fear into those with smaller guns. They also smell nice and feel nice. The guns I mean, and not your mom.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,804
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 8:24:28 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
On the tech score. I got into it back some time ago with a gun guy. His bottom line was, there could be NO tech in guns until there is NO potential failure. This is an unattainable goal. Add any additional component to any system and potential failure goes UP. So... We need to come to some ground. Someplace. Somewhere between safety mechanisms that are bypassed by teenagers and not accepting anything that might infringe on your enjoyment of bump-firing your AR into the abandoned refrigerator!

I'll take that as a joke rather than an insult as I pay a yearly fee to join a private range and shoot steel targets. Anyway if safety was a genuine concern of the masses they would make firearm training and safety classes free and readily available. If you want people to be safe remove any barriers for them to receive the training and education We as a nation are not proactive when we should be. We fall very short with life education, not reading and writing but things like birth control, tobacco use, firearm safety, even driving safety. If you could receive the same driver training that police receive would you take it, if it was free? If it made me a better and safer driver I certainly would. Is that available? Not that I know of. Is it my responsibility to get the education to be safe at "x" activity? Sure is, but if everyone did what they where suppose to it would be a perfect world. You want people to act responsibly and safely, I want that as well, so why not make it easier for people to find out how to? Common sense law would be you must attend a free firearm safety class taught by a professional instructor and covers everything, even cleaning and storage, and you can voluntarily take it every year if you wish as a refresher. So now you aren't denying anyone anything and it should alleviate some of our fear about people having things they don't know enough about and could be unintentionally dangerous with. Sadly we are not a proactive society.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 8:36:25 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 8:24:28 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
On the tech score. I got into it back some time ago with a gun guy. His bottom line was, there could be NO tech in guns until there is NO potential failure. This is an unattainable goal. Add any additional component to any system and potential failure goes UP. So... We need to come to some ground. Someplace. Somewhere between safety mechanisms that are bypassed by teenagers and not accepting anything that might infringe on your enjoyment of bump-firing your AR into the abandoned refrigerator!

I'll take that as a joke rather than an insult as I pay a yearly fee to join a private range and shoot steel targets. Anyway if safety was a genuine concern of the masses they would make firearm training and safety classes free and readily available. If you want people to be safe remove any barriers for them to receive the training and education We as a nation are not proactive when we should be. We fall very short with life education, not reading and writing but things like birth control, tobacco use, firearm safety, even driving safety. If you could receive the same driver training that police receive would you take it, if it was free? If it made me a better and safer driver I certainly would. Is that available? Not that I know of. Is it my responsibility to get the education to be safe at "x" activity? Sure is, but if everyone did what they where suppose to it would be a perfect world. You want people to act responsibly and safely, I want that as well, so why not make it easier for people to find out how to? Common sense law would be you must attend a free firearm safety class taught by a professional instructor and covers everything, even cleaning and storage, and you can voluntarily take it every year if you wish as a refresher. So now you aren't denying anyone anything and it should alleviate some of our fear about people having things they don't know enough about and could be unintentionally dangerous with. Sadly we are not a proactive society.

Training needs to be much more than shooting. That is the least (or very low) on my concern meter.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 9:08:25 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 8:51:36 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
I want a gun if for nothing less than being defiant to Barack "the commy mole" Obama.

Your posts are so insightful.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 10:02:44 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 9:08:25 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/30/2015 8:51:36 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
I want a gun if for nothing less than being defiant to Barack "the commy mole" Obama.

Your posts are so insightful.

Lol, if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black then I don't know what is!
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 10:03:33 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 10:02:44 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 12/30/2015 9:08:25 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/30/2015 8:51:36 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
I want a gun if for nothing less than being defiant to Barack "the commy mole" Obama.

Your posts are so insightful.

Lol, if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black then I don't know what is!

No gun discussion is incomplete without your level-headed words.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 10:22:23 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 10:03:33 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/30/2015 10:02:44 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 12/30/2015 9:08:25 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/30/2015 8:51:36 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
I want a gun if for nothing less than being defiant to Barack "the commy mole" Obama.

Your posts are so insightful.

Lol, if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black then I don't know what is!

No gun discussion is incomplete without your level-headed words.

Nor apparently, is one complete without you making totally untenable statements. In your very first post no less..... As always I'd be happy to provide absolute proof of this for you. And as always, you are welcome to ignore and keep saying the same silly things. Just lmk buddy! You already know I love this stuff ;)
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 10:29:34 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 10:22:23 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 12/30/2015 10:03:33 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/30/2015 10:02:44 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 12/30/2015 9:08:25 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/30/2015 8:51:36 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
I want a gun if for nothing less than being defiant to Barack "the commy mole" Obama.

Your posts are so insightful.

Lol, if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black then I don't know what is!

No gun discussion is incomplete without your level-headed words.

Nor apparently, is one complete without you making totally untenable statements. In your very first post no less..... As always I'd be happy to provide absolute proof of this for you. And as always, you are welcome to ignore and keep saying the same silly things. Just lmk buddy! You already know I love this stuff ;)

Do whatever you please. Talk however you like. I'm not stopping you. I have very little interest engaging in any sort of discussion with you, you really are not very interesting, but I'm not interfering with your prattling posts.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2015 10:39:59 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/30/2015 10:29:34 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/30/2015 10:22:23 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 12/30/2015 10:03:33 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/30/2015 10:02:44 PM, jnedwards11 wrote:
At 12/30/2015 9:08:25 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/30/2015 8:51:36 PM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
I want a gun if for nothing less than being defiant to Barack "the commy mole" Obama.

Your posts are so insightful.

Lol, if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black then I don't know what is!

No gun discussion is incomplete without your level-headed words.

Nor apparently, is one complete without you making totally untenable statements. In your very first post no less..... As always I'd be happy to provide absolute proof of this for you. And as always, you are welcome to ignore and keep saying the same silly things. Just lmk buddy! You already know I love this stuff ;)

Do whatever you please. Talk however you like. I'm not stopping you. I have very little interest engaging in any sort of discussion with you, you really are not very interesting, but I'm not interfering with your prattling posts.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I'm asking if you want me to point out the factual errors in your post so that you can account for them..... I ado ppreciate your permission to speak as I please, but that's not really what I was after.

If I take the time to demonstrate a clear falsehood in your post. Will you take the time to account for that error?