Gun control

It only means that...

....responsible gun ownership has only been being taught to children in this country for a couple of hundred years, now. It's pretty traditional in many parts of this country. With pretty stellar results, as well. With the 300,000,000 + guns in this country...only a miniscule percentage of people actually cause harm to others with them, when not protecting themselves. We should be looking closer at hammers than rifles and shotguns, if we are looking to protect people. We have all seen the statistics that show more people are killed with hand tools, than with shotguns or rifles in this country.
The media really chooses to only report those random cases where something goes awry and someone accidentally kills someone with a gun. You very rarely hear about the deaths (which occur more frequently) by other means. Also....the media does not like to cover all of the stories that occur daily, where people protect themselves from
home invaders with their firearms (doesn't help their cause). Most of the gun related crimes are occuring in the areas and States that have the strongest gun control.
Let's put more laws on the books that won't be effective...or even enforced.
 
I do find it astonishing how few firearm accidents there are considering how many are out there and that killing people is what they were invented to do. I suppose it is because they are a weapon that accidents are so rare. People tend to take them more seriously as a danger than swimming pools, cars, 5 gallon buckets or a whole host of seemingly less dangerous things that are statistically more likely to get a person (especially children) accidently killed than firearms.
 
But, this is just engaging...

in a category mistake. Swimming pools are not intended t kill things. Even accounting for their non-letahl sporting use, guns are lethal weapons. It doesn't seem to me that a 5 year old killing his sister with a un he was given as a gift is not a news story. And calling it an accident may be technically true but it raises some rather thorny questions. Like, why is it so important that a child of that age be introduced to guns? Would waiting until they are 10-2 really be such a big deal?
The echo chamber of the pro-gun lobby seems completely airtight, no incident is without its justification.
Disclaimer: I have 18 rifles hanging on the wall behind me as I type this and shooting is my main hobby these days. I am around firearms being fired at least 6 hours every week. I'm not unaware of or insensitive to the claims of the law abiding gun owner (I'm one myself and I'm a Federally Licensed dealer). But the NRA and the deafer factions of the pro-gun lobby are absolutely beyond my understanding.
 
I think the resistance to "sensible gun laws" has to do with the fact that many, if not most, of the people pushing them are only doing so as a stepping stone towards greater restriction and eventually outright confiscation. Gun rights supporters generally understand that and as a result will fight them every step of the way. The gun lobby has been saying for years that Obama wants to take your guns and they were laughed at. No more than two months after securing reelection he comes out in favor of banning the most popular sporting rifle in America.

For me it's that and the fact that I don't think any of these laws, including the ones on the books, will have the desired effects. I view the NRA as very moderate on the issue of gun control. If it were up to me we would roll back federal gun laws to the 1920s. And it's not even so much about guns. I don't believe that prohibition is the answer to anything and government restrictions really aren't either.
 
Well, this is simply to accept the...

the 'slippery slope' argument and once that is accepted no discussion is worth the time or effort. It is just extremism and those who adhere to are simply not going to be part of any actual doings except as obstructions. That's fine, I suppose , and certainly within their rights, but it contains some dangers and the very real possiblity that their short term victories become Pyrrhic at some point. I think this last round in the Senate came real close and one more Sandy Hook could do it. It's playing with fire-you might get burned and you might not.
 
Well said, Thomas. What we have is a divide between the folks who know and understand guns and those who don't and yet still wish to set the agenda and/or interpret the Constitution/BoR.
 
I know and understand guns...

Does that make my opinion any more valuable, valid, reasonable? No need to answer really, it would be valuable if I agree with you and not if I don't. This is how things work in a Manichean world.

My way or the Highway
With me or against me
Extremism in the defence of [ ] is no vice
 
Sure, and I actually, for tactical reasons, kinda hoped that Manchin-Toomey had passed. It had a lot of good loosening of federal gun laws in it and minimal new restriction. If it had passed it probably would have been a net positive for gun rights and if it had cost some "red state" Democrats their jobs it might have put this issue to bed for another 20 years.
 
That was a reply to Thomas. You've already advised all you're an owner and a gun merchant, so don't take it personally and lay off the insults.
 
Last edited:
I would certainly say that the current President...

...is the King of "my way or the highway" and "with me or against me"...moreso than any person that has previously held that office.
 
I agree...

with that analysis and it is precisely what I hoped would happen because it would have made both sides reasonably happy and, as you say, put this on the shelf for awhile and take some of the energy out of the issue. It would have been a really good move-and it wasn't made. I'm still shaking my head over that one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top