At least 27 People Dead, 18 of them children.

Also, we're supposed to trust that you- and everyone else possessing a firearm- are responsible enough to keep that secured at all times. Which clearly isn't happening.

I completely agree with this actually. For every person that honestly tires to keep their firearms/other weapons secure, there's two or three more that are just acting billy badass with them.

All of my guns are secure at all times, and the only time they have rounds in them are when they're ready to be fired.

Unfortunately this isn't the case most of the time.

There was a guy stationed on Fort Lewis with me that got shot in the head because his wife thought his gun was unloaded, and they were both drunk.

Darwinism at it's best.
 
You guys are both going to the extremes. Meeks is right, you have a right to defend your home, and as ex-military(are you out yet?) he has more training and time with firearms than the average person. I do think he is being extreme, but I would trust him around guns more than most. Personally, like I said, I would let a guy run off with my Xbox or stereo, I'm not going to shoot a guy over that, but if your family is threatened it is a different story. I do think that some people who own guns do get this feeling of invincibility, which is what leads to a solid chunk of gun crimes.

Now if you fuckers will excuse me I'm gonna go get some rocky road, you made me hungry.
 
I completely agree with this actually. For every person that honestly tires to keep their firearms/other weapons secure, there's two or three more that are just acting billy badass with them.

All of my guns are secure at all times, and the only time they have rounds in them are when they're ready to be fired.

Unfortunately this isn't the case most of the time.

There was a guy stationed on Fort Lewis with me that got shot in the head because his wife thought his gun was unloaded, and they were both drunk.

Darwinism at it's best.

You just might finally be starting to catch on a little. This discussion is not about YOU.
 
You guys are both going to the extremes. Meeks is right, you have a right to defend your home, and as ex-military(are you out yet?) he has more training and time with firearms than the average person. I do think he is being extreme, but I would trust him around guns more than most.

No, I still have a couple of months left in. And I can see how I can be considered extreme, but I'm not taking any chances. It's my job as the head of the household to protect my family, and I take that seriously even though it's just me and my wife right now.

Now if you fuckers will excuse me I'm gonna go get some rocky road, you made me hungry.


Do you want me to say it, or do you know where I'm going with this?
 
You guys are both going to the extremes. Meeks is right, you have a right to defend your home, and as ex-military(are you out yet?) he has more training and time with firearms than the average person. I do think he is being extreme, but I would trust him around guns more than most. Personally, like I said, I would let a guy run off with my Xbox or stereo, I'm not going to shoot a guy over that, but if your family is threatened it is a different story. I do think that some people who own guns do get this feeling of invincibility, which is what leads to a solid chunk of gun crimes.

Now if you fuckers will excuse me I'm gonna go get some rocky road, you made me hungry.
There are 300 million firearms available in America. At this point, right now, I do understand the purpose of a firearm for self-defense. I'm pretty goddamned glad my brother-in-law has one in Baltimore. (I do, however, view that as more of a comfort issue, and not as a practical defense issue.) I'm looking to work towards a time- and this is a generation-long issue, not an election cycle issue- when the idea of keeping a firearm in the home for protection is considered ridiculous overkill.
 
There are 300 million firearms available in America. At this point, right now, I do understand the purpose of a firearm for self-defense. I'm pretty goddamned glad my brother-in-law has one in Baltimore. (I do, however, view that as more of a comfort issue, and not as a practical defense issue.) I'm looking to work towards a time- and this is a generation-long issue, not an election cycle issue- when the idea of keeping a firearm in the home for protection is considered ridiculous overkill.

I doubt that'll ever happen. Good, wishful thinking though.
 
Ten years ago, did you think gay marriage would become commonplace? A lot can happen over the course of time. And we'll have plenty of mass shootings in the future in case we need another nudge in that direction.

This question isn't being asked to spark another crazy ass debate, but if you were in charge, what gun control measures would you have in place?
 
This question isn't being asked to spark another crazy ass debate, but if you were in charge, what gun control measures would you have in place?
Well, the problem right now is that criminals (or law-abiding citizens who decide to become criminals) have very easy access to firearms, mostly due to how available they are. The primary obstacle than is reducing the supply of firearms.

People tend to respond to this part with an all-or-nothing approach, which is just silly. If you tell people tomorrow to turn in their guns, yes, then the only people left with guns will be the people that laugh. Start by restricting the manufacture and import of new firearms- reduce the supply of new weapons. Simultaneously, require police to destroy all stolen and unregistered firearms. If you can't keep a gun safe enough to prevent it from being stolen, you don't deserve to keep it. Very few new weapons- and those of limited class, such as single-shot style hunting rifles- being introduced, plus the destruction of the current illegal supply, will reduce the amount of weapons available.

The next step- and understand I'm talking years, not months- would be to start restricting what people are legally allowed to possess in their home. I would set up shooting clubs where people would store their weapons under a professional, secure setting. I trust central points of administration, where protection resources can be targeted, a whole hell of a lot more than I trust every individual owner to properly secure their firearms. Require people to store gradually increasing classes of firearms at these shooting clubs when not in immediate use. (Before you say, "couldn't someone just pick up their gun and shoot up a college", the answer is yes. As long as guns exist, you will never absolutely prevent shootings. However, you can drastically reduce the incidence of them, which is my goal. If 10,000 people get murdered per year by firearms instead of 30,000, that's an accomplishment.) Eventually, all firearms would be required to be stored at these clubs- not Fish + Game type clubs either, but professional security companies specializing in firearms storage- and there would be very severe penalties for being in illegal possession of a firearm.

Meanwhile, increase penalties for firearms violations, including improper care of a firearm. Firearms violations should be looked at as a Serious Fucking Deal in this country, and not just when they're linked to drugs. They shouldn't be something you can plea down to six months.

Criminals aren't immune to economics. If there are fewer firearms, and they are harder to obtain, they become more costly. If you can't afford a firearm, or the twenty years in prison you'd receive for illegally possessing one outside of a shooting club, you will likely resort to less lethal, more affordable methods.

If you're looking for absolute security, I hate to burst your Clancy-bubble, but you don't have that now.
 
Either the same day or the day before the incident in Connecticut, there was a guy that attacked 20 or so people in China with a knife. There were 0 deaths. That's why people care more about guns.

Looked this up and seems these are on the rise in China and the one on Friday is the only one in which children didn't die. Seems to be the exception not the rule.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/29/28-children-stabbed-at-ki_n_556520.html

On a side note this was a good read about what drives these kind of people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/o...=me&adxnnlx=1355947213-ACaAAa0CvoSSeNLrbyVk8A
 
Ten years ago, did you think gay marriage would become commonplace? A lot can happen over the course of time. And we'll have plenty of mass shootings in the future in case we need another nudge in that direction.

Ten years ago I was 10 and didn't have a clue what gay meant other than happy. Lol. But I see your point. The only thing is that we're not talking about adding a law. We're talking about changing an amendment. While I do agree with a majority of your ideas for gun control, I don't see this getting a majority vote. Especially from staunch Republicans that are too fucking stubborn to let it happen. Especially if the Democrats were to suggest it. You know if the Republicans don't suggest it then it MUST be wrong. :rolleyes:

I think people should be allowed to have guns in their home but only a certain number and they must be stored properly. Have them register themselves as owners and have a couple of inspectors visit once a month or so to make sure they comply. If not, confiscate the gun.
 
Another reason why people aren't as up in arms about knives is that any idiot can make an implement for cutting. It takes a manufacturing process to create a firearm. You literally cannot prevent someone from getting a knife, unless you want to take on the culinary industry too.

However, there was a huge to-do in my city a few years ago when knife crime experience a sharp rise (which, not coincidentally at all, occurred at the same time as a drop in gun violence) and the city council wanted to ban possession of all knives longer than two inches. Didn't pass, mostly because a Craftsman knife has more utility uses than a handgun.
 
Ten years ago I was 10 and didn't have a clue what gay meant other than happy. Lol. But I see your point. The only thing is that we're not talking about adding a law. We're talking about changing an amendment. While I do agree with a majority of your ideas for gun control, I don't see this getting a majority vote. Especially from staunch Republicans that are too fucking stubborn to let it happen. Especially if the Democrats were to suggest it. You know if the Republicans don't suggest it then it MUST be wrong. :rolleyes:
Amendments can always be changed; after all, that's what they are. Changes that we made when we looked back at the Constitution and said "you know...."

It's certainly not an easy goal. If it was easy, we'd already be there.
 
Looked this up and seems these are on the rise in China and the one on Friday is the only one in which children didn't die. Seems to be the exception not the rule.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/29/28-children-stabbed-at-ki_n_556520.html

On a side note this was a good read about what drives these kind of people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/o...=me&adxnnlx=1355947213-ACaAAa0CvoSSeNLrbyVk8A

The point stands. How many mass shootings result in 0 fatalities?
 
Amendments can always be changed; after all, that's what they are. Changes that we made when we looked back at the Constitution and said "you know...."

It's certainly not an easy goal. If it was easy, we'd already be there.

Oh I agree. Changes can and should be made. Things are much different now than then. Changes should be made to match the time. But this is an amendment that has an endless amount of blind followers that will not listen to reason. Many of which, help to make up our Congress. It'll take time, hard work, and a LOT of patience. I'm not sure we'll ever get there but one can always hope. I certainly will.
 
So much ridiculousness and stupidity in this thread, I can't wait to get home later tonight to address it.
 
Amendments can always be changed; after all, that's what they are. Changes that we made when we looked back at the Constitution and said "you know...."

It's certainly not an easy goal. If it was easy, we'd already be there.
*cough*Bill of Rights*cough*
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,851
Messages
3,300,884
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top