|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/18/2011 03:02:51 AM · #101 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Laws won't disarm gangsters, they will only disarm law abiding citizens. |
Oh for pity's sake Art, you can come up with a more sensible argument than this can't you? Now all we need is 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'.
Granted, reducing gun possession in the US (legal and illegal) would be a massive task, but only because no-one has had the balls to address the issue previously and thus the number of firearms now in circulation must be enormous. But does that mean it isn't worth attempting? Reduce access to firearms and the total number (legal and illegal) will begin to decline. After the Port Arthur Massacre in Australia in '96, the govt of the day embarked upon a massive campaign to reduce the number of firearms in circulation. And they succeeded. Admittedly the numbers of guns had never been anything like what is in the US, but now it is lower again. And consequently the rates of gun homicides here are a couple of hundred per year (in a country with a population of 22.5 million). These are the facts. As I mentioned in a previous post, y'all kill each other with guns alone at a rate around 5 times that at which we in Oz kill each other by all means combined. I simply cannot get my head around how so many Americans seen unconcerned about facts such as these.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2011 03:02:51 AM · #102 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
Not to go off on some political discourse, but, we are all citizens of the world - it is quite valid for somebody in Europe to have an opinion on issues in America. The US comments on, say, German monetary policy, human rights abuses in China, genocide in Sudan etc. We can listen to these comments (or not) and apply our own experiences (or prejudices) to our judgement but generally the world is a better place when we exchange views with our neighbours. |
Opine all you want. I've already said how relevant I consider non-U.S. citizens' opinions on this issue. Others will undoubtedly disagree. I listen, but I also consider the source. Different countries have different cultures and what works in one, does not necessarily work in another. I love and respect the laws and cultures of many other countries and I am baffled at others, but I don't presume to think they should "be the way we are", or that they ever could be (i.e. Afghanistan). One of the things I love about the U.S. is that we have lots of differences in laws, philosophy and ideology throughout our 50 states and if I don't like it in one, I can freely move to another.
Anyway, on the gun issue, people always get worked up when a particular incident happens, but I am more in favor of keeping things in perspective and address the real problems and the higher priority ones. These debates are as pointless as many political debates - it all boils down to a difference in opinion.
And with that, I am going to get some sleep. :) |
Fair enough, Art. I would absolutely defend your right to your opinion, and my own to disagree with it - that's what a forum is. One point from US history: wasn't the American civil war fought over the rights of one group of Americans (slave owners) to have their own social customs and systems of (racist) government preserved? Now, it seems to me, gun owners are defending their rights to have access to lethal weapons despite the harm that a huge excess of firearms does to society; because it's their 'custom' or their 'way of life' and that nobody outside of the state and certainly not outside of the country should comment or legislate on. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 03:09:51 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by ganders:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
And all of the gang members are carrying legally?? ...yeah, that's what I thought. |
Would it make a difference if they were all legal, licensed guns?? ...yeah, that's what I thought. |
The point is that they aren't. Laws won't disarm gangsters, they will only disarm law abiding citizens.
There are rational and irrational arguments on all sides of this issue. I'm not a gun nut (just a plain nut). I support everyone's right (in the U.S.) to own guns. I would also support rational restrictions on things like 30 round magazines, but I also understand the fears that if you let the government start regulating, they will never stop.
If you're not a U.S. citizen, your opinion on this issue is to me, as relevant as mine is to you on your system of government or laws or constitution or social culture. No offense. |
Not to go off on some political discourse, but, we are all citizens of the world - it is quite valid for somebody in Europe to have an opinion on issues in America. The US comments on, say, German monetary policy, human rights abuses in China, genocide in Sudan etc. We can listen to these comments (or not) and apply our own experiences (or prejudices) to our judgement but generally the world is a better place when we exchange views with our neighbours.
You support everyone's right to own guns? Including mentally unstable people? Or sight-impaired? Or people taking mood-altering medication?
The law wouldn't disarm criminals but less weapons in circulation generally would make the country safer, no? |
Since when did we get a reputation for not being completely Amerocentric? |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 03:12:36 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
The law wouldn't disarm criminals but less weapons in circulation generally would make the country safer, no? |
No, because, by definition, the first 90% of the guns that will be removed from circulation will be the legal guns that we actually WANT people to own..
The remaining 10% will largely be in the hands of criminals (again, by definition, technically all of them will be in criminal hands, but let's talk about real criminals)..
So, let's see, that would make the country safer, but only for the criminals, and that's not really what I'd like to support. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 03:16:41 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
Fair enough, Art. I would absolutely defend your right to your opinion, and my own to disagree with it - that's what a forum is. One point from US history: wasn't the American civil war fought over the rights of one group of Americans (slave owners) to have their own social customs and systems of (racist) government preserved? Now, it seems to me, gun owners are defending their rights to have access to lethal weapons despite the harm that a huge excess of firearms does to society; because it's their 'custom' or their 'way of life' and that nobody outside of the state and certainly not outside of the country should comment or legislate on. |
Nice, I see what you've done there...
So, you're saying that I as a gun owner am no better than a slave master. Well done.
Message edited by author 2011-01-18 08:16:54. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 03:24:12 AM · #106 |
The illegal use and possession of guns in the US is not the Problem - they are a symptom of the Problem.
No amount of dealing with or debating the symptom of gun violence will cure the Problem in the US.
Once the issue of overindulging the sense of entitlement felt by nearly all US citizens is properly addressed followed closely by reintroducing foreign concepts like kindness, humanity, forethought, patience, strength of character, humiliation and love will we start to see what a Great nation really is.
But that will never happen - it's too much work. Instead, we'll make more rules and regulations and make lots of noise about how many of these rules and regulations are not properly enforced, chasing our own tails into oblivion as fast as we can . . .
I carry a gun every day. I am a full time peace officer who must also enforce laws. I love this country and the associated rights afforded by citizenship. I hate the amount of social retardation I have to endure to love my country. It is your right to have and express your opinion and disagree with the opinions of others - but to make value judgements and hold prejudice adds to the Problem.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2011 03:47:23 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
[quote=ray_mefarso]
Nice, I see what you've done there...
So, you're saying that I as a gun owner am no better than a slave master. Well done. |
Please don't say that. I think you know that is not at all what I'm trying to say but you've decided to go for impact. My point is (and here I really agree with what aircooled guy has just posted) that personal entitlement and rights and don't-interfere-in-my-business have made it difficult for otherwise rational people to surrender the freedom to own guns for the greater good of a safer society. I compared this with the slave master who personally had a lot to lose with the end of the 'custom' of slavery and had to be fought into submission even though the end result was for the greater good.
I have a great deal of admiration for the American spirit of individualism, liberalism and adventure. I believe it has been a creative force for good in many spheres. It's just the gun thing that I feel needs some bravery and selflessness.
Off soapbox and back to topic: I don't carry a gun. Good luck to all that do, I would not feel safe going on a shoot with you. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 04:08:54 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
[quote=ray_mefarso]
Nice, I see what you've done there...
So, you're saying that I as a gun owner am no better than a slave master. Well done. |
Please don't say that. I think you know that is not at all what I'm trying to say but you've decided to go for impact. My point is (and here I really agree with what aircooled guy has just posted) that personal entitlement and rights and don't-interfere-in-my-business have made it difficult for otherwise rational people to surrender the freedom to own guns for the greater good of a safer society. I compared this with the slave master who personally had a lot to lose with the end of the 'custom' of slavery and had to be fought into submission even though the end result was for the greater good.
I have a great deal of admiration for the American spirit of individualism, liberalism and adventure. I believe it has been a creative force for good in many spheres. It's just the gun thing that I feel needs some bravery and selflessness.
Off soapbox and back to topic: I don't carry a gun. Good luck to all that do, I would not feel safe going on a shoot with you. |
*shrug* I'm sure you are a great person and all... No worries about that, but I do see that you have again, managed to draw parallels to slave owners and gun owners, and have, this time, added a strong implication that gun owners are cowardly and selfish.
Be that as it may, we can just agree to disagree, but my real question is why would you not feel safe around someone who carries a gun? If they carry it in the "appropriate" way, you should never even know they have it, so why would you feel unsafe about a piece of metal that does absolutely nothing? After all, until it's in someone's hands, it really is just a chunk of cold metal. I think that you are unfortunately scared of something you don't understand.
Just to continue the slavery / southern trend you seem to like so very much, I think that your inherent irrational fear of being near a gun is probably springing from that same part of your brain that tells you to be afraid of anything you don't know and understand. Kinda like how all those scared white people who used to hunt down and kill black people because they were afraid of them... I think we can all benefit from trying a bit harder to really understand the views of others, especially when we find ourselves afraid of something simply because it is an unknown....
In short, there are things you do every day that are far more dangerous than being near someone with a gun, or do you just take this whole safety thing to an extreme and never leave your underground bunker with padded rooms and a full ER staff awaiting your every cough? *shrug* risk is a beautiful element of life, learn to enjoy and appreciate it. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 04:31:11 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by ganders:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
And all of the gang members are carrying legally?? ...yeah, that's what I thought. |
Would it make a difference if they were all legal, licensed guns?? ...yeah, that's what I thought. |
The point is that they aren't. Laws won't disarm gangsters, they will only disarm law abiding citizens.
There are rational and irrational arguments on all sides of this issue. I'm not a gun nut (just a plain nut). I support everyone's right (in the U.S.) to own guns. I would also support rational restrictions on things like 30 round magazines, but I also understand the fears that if you let the government start regulating, they will never stop.
If you're not a U.S. citizen, your opinion on this issue is to me, as relevant as mine is to you on your system of government or laws or constitution or social culture. No offense. |
Well forgive me for expressing an opinion without citizenship. For what it's worth, I wasn't even trying to get into the wider gun ownership debate. I happen to largely be on the gun ownership side, in the context of the U.S.
I just don't get the legality of gang members owning weapons as having anything to do with, well, anything. Increasing gun control wouldn't change anything for them because they're already holding guns. Decreasing gun control and handing out licenses to everyone wouldn't change anything for them because they're already holding guns. The legality, or otherwise, of the guns in criminals hands has little to do with the debate, as far as I can see. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 04:33:33 AM · #110 |
I really wish I hadn't used the slave-owning analogy now. Sorry. Can I take it back please?
Why wouldn't I feel safe around somebody carrying a gun? A piece of cold metal? Mostly I wouldn't feel unsafe, but as soon as somebody has some mental aberration, gets drunk, gets high, has an argument with their partner or just has an accident while cleaning the harmless chunk of metal. Then people die. Come on, is it a coincidence that the Western country with the highest levels of gun ownership has the highest rates of gun homicide? Please just answer that.
One argument is that everybody gets a gun and we're all safer. I think that's a very flawed argument.
Am I afraid of what I don't understand? I don't think so but I would be a little nervous around somebody who felt it was necessary to carry a firearm to a photography shoot.
Also, I'm not saying that gun owners are selfish and cowardly, just that it takes bravery and selflessness to say I won't carry a gun because it will, on a social level, make my world safer, even if I believe, however wrongly, that it makes me less safe on a personal level.
Message edited by author 2011-01-18 09:48:22. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 07:32:22 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by ganders:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
And all of the gang members are carrying legally?? ...yeah, that's what I thought. |
Would it make a difference if they were all legal, licensed guns?? ...yeah, that's what I thought. |
The fact is that the vast majority of gang members would be ineligible to own and/or carry a gun. So, if the gang member obeyed that law, there would be few gang shootings.
Since the gang members disregard that law, like most other laws, they have and will continue to have guns, regardless of the law. Of course, anyone obeying the law will be easy pickings... |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 07:46:28 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
I really wish I hadn't used the slave-owning analogy now. Sorry. Can I take it back please?
Why wouldn't I feel safe around somebody carrying a gun? A piece of cold metal? Mostly I wouldn't feel unsafe, but as soon as somebody has some mental aberration, gets drunk, gets high, has an argument with their partner or just has an accident while cleaning the harmless chunk of metal. Then people die. Come on, is it a coincidence that the Western country with the highest levels of gun ownership has the highest rates of gun homicide? Please just answer that.
One argument is that everybody gets a gun and we're all safer. I think that's a very flawed argument.
Am I afraid of what I don't understand? I don't think so but I would be a little nervous around somebody who felt it was necessary to carry a firearm to a photography shoot.
Also, I'm not saying that gun owners are selfish and cowardly, just that it takes bravery and selflessness to say I won't carry a gun because it will, on a social level, make my world safer, even if I believe, however wrongly, that it makes me less safe on a personal level. |
Meh, no worries man, I probably was a bit harsh, sorry about that.
As for the coincidence, well, the definition of coincidence seems to be:
{
# an event that might have been arranged although it was really accidental
# the quality of occupying the same position or area in space; "he waited for the coincidence of the target and the cross hairs"
# concurrence: the temporal property of two things happening at the same time; "the interval determining the coincidence gate is adjustable"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
# Coincidence is when something uncanny and coincidental happens. The word is derived from the Latin co- ("in", "with", "together") and incidere ("to fall on"). ...
}
I would say that, yes in the case of the first three definitions, it is coincidence... But, I'm going to assume you were using it in the fourth manner above, which is to say, do I think it was an unlikely occurrence that had no relation to the prevalence of weapons? Well, that's easy! If there were no guns then gun deaths are an impossibility, so yes, of course they are directly related in that sense... Why do Americans tend to whack each other so much? No idea, but if you wanna make something of it.... ;) j/k...
In the end, I carry a gun for a ton of different reasons and in a ton of different situations, and people who knee-jerk at that just worry me, as they're usually not very well exposed to firearms, and I suspect, they feel uncomfortable more because of the unknown, rather than because of a gun. Face the facts, hands can kill pretty darn good too - and we're (mostly) all carrying around a pair of those, knives are clearly deadly, and I'll bet you have a few of those, in the end I guess it's really more of just accepting that the incidents you hear about are truly aberrations, and have everything to do with the human, and very little to do with the weapon, other than the fact that guns create lethal force ability for some people who are too small, too weak, untrained, or those who simply lack the dedication to be lethal without such an easily operable weapon - but then again, they do drive cars, which are also great weapons when used in that manner *shrug*... |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 07:54:06 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
I really wish I hadn't used the slave-owning analogy now. Sorry. Can I take it back please?
Why wouldn't I feel safe around somebody carrying a gun? A piece of cold metal? Mostly I wouldn't feel unsafe, but as soon as somebody has some mental aberration, gets drunk, gets high, has an argument with their partner or just has an accident while cleaning the harmless chunk of metal. Then people die. Come on, is it a coincidence that the Western country with the highest levels of gun ownership has the highest rates of gun homicide? Please just answer that.
One argument is that everybody gets a gun and we're all safer. I think that's a very flawed argument.
Am I afraid of what I don't understand? I don't think so but I would be a little nervous around somebody who felt it was necessary to carry a firearm to a photography shoot.
Also, I'm not saying that gun owners are selfish and cowardly, just that it takes bravery and selflessness to say I won't carry a gun because it will, on a social level, make my world safer, even if I believe, however wrongly, that it makes me less safe on a personal level. |
The US also has higher rates of auto ownership and correspondingly high rates of automobile related deaths.
Same with alcohol, tobacco etc.
I absolutely don't understand your differentiation between making your world safer vs being personally safe. Either you are safe or not.
Part of having a right is making the choice NOT to exercise it, to your benefit or detriment.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2011 08:48:08 AM · #114 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
The law wouldn't disarm criminals but less weapons in circulation generally would make the country safer, no? |
No, because, by definition, the first 90% of the guns that will be removed from circulation will be the legal guns that we actually WANT people to own.. |
Why do you keep repeating this obviously baseless claim?
Virtually everyone who has commented here in favor of gun control has repeatedly said that the goal is not to disarm law-abiding citizens, but to make sure, in a way done only ineffectually today, that those who obtain guns are law-abiding, competent adults. Surely even members of the NRA don't want guns sold to people who are mentally unstable or to criminals, or proxy-buyers for criminals. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 09:16:40 AM · #115 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
The law wouldn't disarm criminals but less weapons in circulation generally would make the country safer, no? |
No, because, by definition, the first 90% of the guns that will be removed from circulation will be the legal guns that we actually WANT people to own.. |
Why do you keep repeating this obviously baseless claim?
Virtually everyone who has commented here in favor of gun control has repeatedly said that the goal is not to disarm law-abiding citizens, but to make sure, in a way done only ineffectually today, that those who obtain guns are law-abiding, competent adults. Surely even members of the NRA don't want guns sold to people who are mentally unstable or to criminals, or proxy-buyers for criminals. |
I was responding to the question of "would fewer weapons in circulation generally make the country safer"
And, while I understand that the goal is not to disarm law abiding citizens, in the end that's exactly what most laws will end up doing, as the criminals don't need to pass the tests and standards, they'll get the guns from someone who doesn't care if they intend to shoot children in the face with it, all they want to do is sell the gun - while the average citizen has to navigate an ever increasing maze of legal procedures and possible yearly re-certifications and weapon checks, along with whatever other possible revenue generating dog and pony show the jokers in charge can come up with.
And I don't know why you keep repeating that this is baseless, when indeed it has a quite solid foundation upon simple observable facts:
1. Criminals can get guns through non-legal and non-regulated channels
2. Citizens that are law abiding, by definition, cannot, as doing so is illegal.
3. If you restrict something, or make it even marginally more difficult to purchase/own, fewer people will own it.
4. Criminals will not be directly affected by any new gun law that is passed, no matter what the scope or method.
So, I therefore have concluded that if all of the preceding is true (we can argue that to death I'm sure...), then it follows that the average citizen will be less likely to own and maintain a firearm, while the criminal will not be less likely to own and maintain a firearm. I think that it would then be logical to conclude that any new gun law is likely to effectively decrease legal ownership while having no effect on illegal ownership, or at best a delayed effect on illegal ownership.
Here's a good question: What percentage of the criminal population owned guns a century ago, half a century, ten years ago? Today?
I guess you could look at convictions for armed robbery, or assault with a deadly weapon (not sure if it's really possible to restrict this to guns...)... Or some similar statistics, that should reveal some pattern. My hypothesis is that criminal gun ownership has, despite increasing regulation and control, decreased when looking at average citizens, while rising for the criminal population.
Message edited by author 2011-01-18 14:25:12. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 10:35:15 AM · #116 |
| Well, pass enough drug laws until that problem is fixed, then work on the gun laws. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 12:55:40 PM · #117 |
| I still subscribe to Chris Rocks solution, make the bullets cost $5000. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 12:59:40 PM · #118 |
| I would be a very wealthy man :) |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 01:06:48 PM · #119 |
@ spork99 a rate means how many incidents occur PER given number of population. The total number of guns (or cars) is irrelevant
Think about how and why criminals get guns: If I'm a burglar and I break into an empty house, the first thing I'm looking for (after a Leica M9) is a weapon. Because gun ownership is high, I have a good chance of finding a gun in a house I burgle. I may find a legally-held gun in a car I steal. If I'm any kind of criminal I can easily get hold of a weapon precisely because it's so easy for law-abiding people to get weapons. If the law is tight in my state I can connect with criminal networks in another state and simply be supplied with any armament I want.
As a criminal why do I want a gun? because everyone else has one. I might be only planning to steal a bicycle but if I fear that the owner will defend a $100 dollar bike with lethal force then I must go on my enterprise armed. In other countries petty criminals are just that - they are not usually armed because lethal force is not required at the level at which they operate. Gun ownership ups the ante and makes every small crime a potential homicide. (I consider the theft of a few hundred/thousand dollars worth of camera gear a small crime. Save money on a gun - get insurance!)
Fact is, a lot of people love guns. You live in a quiet, peaceful neighbourhood and you have a collection of assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition. Why? Is it really likely that you are going to have to confront an armed intruder with your arsenal? It's more likely that you are going to go nuts when your wife leaves you or you lose your job and you'll shoot a couple of people and then yourself. More likely that your son or daughter is going to accidentally shoot someone. (or deliberately shoot their classmates) More likely that someone will break in and steal your guns and then go shoot somebody in a drive by.
It may be difficult because, as others have said, the criminals already have guns and they're not going to give them up, but you all should really try.
The original post was 'does anyone carry a gun?' (when out taking pictures) and the discussion has moved on to encompass US gun control laws. I think that's because really, you don't need to carry a gun when out taking pictures, and most people know this. If you think you might need a gun then you maybe shouldn't be going to that place. But, if you love guns and you're a fan of Charles Bronson, then it will seem like you've got no option.
Message edited by author 2011-01-18 18:10:48. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 01:13:00 PM · #120 |
Wow! Pretty funny how many people in this thread think it is their right to take away the rights of others.
You know what gun control accomplishes? It takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, nothing more nothing less. Criminals do not care if it is illegal to own a gun and criminals do not buy their guns at local sporting goods stores. They steal them or buy them from guys on the street and that will never end, but gun control would sure put an end to hunters and sportsmen owning them.
The lack of common sense among the gun grabbing sect is hilarious to me. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 01:16:43 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
....If you think you might need a gun then you maybe shouldn't be going to that place. .... |
So, let's say I'm committed to going two places, one is an area where large predators are, and are aggressive, the other is an inner city area that has huge crime rates, and I'm intending on doing stealth photography, but fear being caught.
Now, let's assume I cannot be dissuaded from my foolish task, what argument can you make against carrying a gun? Regardless of whether or not I *should* be going (do you often find yourself projecting your lifestyle onto others and then making value judgments?) do you think that one is justified in arming themselves when they enter one of the above scenarios or a different scenario of similar nature? Or do you really think I should just try to talk calmly to the irrational gangster who just saw my camera? |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 01:28:25 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
....If you think you might need a gun then you maybe shouldn't be going to that place. .... |
So, let's say I'm committed to going two places, one is an area where large predators are, and are aggressive, the other is an inner city area that has huge crime rates, and I'm intending on doing stealth photography, but fear being caught.
Now, let's assume I cannot be dissuaded from my foolish task, what argument can you make against carrying a gun? Regardless of whether or not I *should* be going (do you often find yourself projecting your lifestyle onto others and then making value judgments?) do you think that one is justified in arming themselves when they enter one of the above scenarios or a different scenario of similar nature? Or do you really think I should just try to talk calmly to the irrational gangster who just saw my camera? |
But Cory, these inner city places with high crime rates are full of people with guns and what happens? Someone or the other gets shot all the time. They all have guns yet they all get shot up. Why would you going there with a gun make you safer? You will either get shot or shoot someone, maybe not the person you intended to shoot. Why go if you don't have to. You're gambling on being better or faster or luckier with your gun than the criminal. That is so cowboy! If I don't have a gun are my chances much worse? I can at least put my hands up and say take my Canon I'm unarmed. I speak as someone who has been held up at gunpoint and can't even remember the stuff or the amount of cash that was taken from me. Whatever it was, I've got it back now and I haven't been hurt or hurt anybody in the process. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 01:29:26 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
Wow! Pretty funny how many people in this thread think it is their right to take away the rights of others.
You know what gun control accomplishes? It takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, nothing more nothing less. Criminals do not care if it is illegal to own a gun and criminals do not buy their guns at local sporting goods stores. They steal them or buy them from guys on the street and that will never end, but gun control would sure put an end to hunters and sportsmen owning them.
The lack of common sense among the gun grabbing sect is hilarious to me. |
Where are you people getting this idea? WHERE?
Nobody in this thread has proposed banning guns outright. Some of us would like to see improved enforcement of existing regulations governing gun ownership, and some of us would like to see those regulation strengthened in certain areas. That's IT!
Sheesh...
R. |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 01:36:13 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
Originally posted by ray_mefarso:
....If you think you might need a gun then you maybe shouldn't be going to that place. .... |
So, let's say I'm committed to going two places, one is an area where large predators are, and are aggressive, the other is an inner city area that has huge crime rates, and I'm intending on doing stealth photography, but fear being caught.
Now, let's assume I cannot be dissuaded from my foolish task, |
Urhuh, I would so tell on you to your fiancée! That would stop you in your tracks! |
|
|
|
01/18/2011 01:36:14 PM · #125 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by chazoe:
Wow! Pretty funny how many people in this thread think it is their right to take away the rights of others.
You know what gun control accomplishes? It takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, nothing more nothing less. Criminals do not care if it is illegal to own a gun and criminals do not buy their guns at local sporting goods stores. They steal them or buy them from guys on the street and that will never end, but gun control would sure put an end to hunters and sportsmen owning them.
The lack of common sense among the gun grabbing sect is hilarious to me. |
Where are you people getting this idea? WHERE?
Nobody in this thread has proposed banning guns outright. Some of us would like to see improved enforcement of existing regulations governing gun ownership, and some of us would like to see those regulation strengthened in certain areas. That's IT!
Sheesh...
R. |
Slippery slope argument. Besides it's fun ya grumpy ol' Bear. :) |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/09/2025 05:33:29 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/09/2025 05:33:29 AM EDT.
|
