Yay, GUNS!

[rangerx]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Please don't consider me part of the 'gun lobby', unless you consider the gun lobby to be people who think there is a place in this country for reasonable use of firearms that does not put undo risk on the public.

I don't consider you as gun lobby. You are no different than me in your motivation. I'm from Canada, we are pretty much born with guns in our hands and our ownership per household is very high, yet we don't have the politics defining it.

Fellow Canadians like MigL and I disagree on a lot of political points, but when it comes to guns, we see eye to eye because both of us know water, guns, abortion, healthcare and immigration are excellent ways to commit political suicide in this country.

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Limiting a shotgun to one round at a time is more often than not a conservation, not a kill-ability issue.

Achieving a bag limit is a privilege, not a right conferred by gun rights.

Hunters are generally allowed three shells in their shotgun when hunting fowl. It is a compromise between the difficulty of hitting a fast moving target, and conservation of the resource (fowl). That is why I said limiting a shotgun to one shell would be a difficult argument; it would eliminate a well thought out regulation that all parties agreed to and seems to work well.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Hunters are generally allowed three shells in their shotgun when hunting fowl. It is a compromise between the difficulty of hitting a fast moving target, and conservation of the resource (fowl). That is why I said limiting a shotgun to one shell would be a difficult argument; it would eliminate a well thought out regulation that all parties agreed to and seems to work well.

Seems a reasonable compromise.

For all guns.

[iNow]

13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Hunters are generally allowed three shells in their shotgun when hunting fowl. It is a compromise between the difficulty of hitting a fast moving target, and conservation of the resource (fowl).

That is reasonable, much more reasonable than 30 as we discussed earlier in the thread (tho, obviously not with shotguns).

12 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Seems a reasonable compromise.

For all guns.

QFT

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

A few years back i had a run in with local drug traffickers. The Sheriff told me that if i didn't have a gun now was the time to get one. He told me that they couldn't be there instantly and I was the first line of defense. On another note they did have a car sitting near my house for a couple weeks just incase.. 

5

I'm not suggesting guns never have a use, nor that they can't be used as a means of defense, but in terms of either more than 1/3 shot capacity is difficult to argue whatever it looks like.

[rangerx]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Hunters are generally allowed three shells in their shotgun when hunting fowl. It is a compromise between the difficulty of hitting a fast moving target, and conservation of the resource (fowl). That is why I said limiting a shotgun to one shell would be a difficult argument; it would eliminate a well thought out regulation that all parties agreed to and seems to work well.

Again, I cannot agree more. Our state/province conservation authorities do well to manage these resources (for the most part).

I gather your concern is a slippery slope of losing rights which are inconsequential to matters at hand. That's a fair position.

However, the current trend of mass-shootings by crazy people has transcended from a slippery slope into an outright avalanche, hence the current play field is not level.

Discussing ducks while kids die is beside the point. My taste for duck l'orange can take a back seat to our youth dying needlessly any day of the week.

At the end of the day, it's sad we agree to do it for ducks, but not kids.

[Ten oz]

I don't see have the prevalence of guns in various communities is relevant. Something can be prevalent yet still have safety regulations and limits. Walking is prevalent in every community everywhere yet one isn't allow to just walk down the center of a freeway. Jaywalking is still illegal. Based on age one cannot even walk various places alone. Yes, lots of people have guns and everyone who has a gun isn't bad. That doesn't mean laws shouldn't be improved. 

[MigL]

I know you can be sent off to war at the ripe old age of 18, but Raider has mentioned how many 10 yr olds he knows that own a gun.
And while I realize it is best to train youngsters in their use , if they're going to have a gun, is there any justification in letting children have guns ?

Why not wait till we consider them mature enough, like drinking, driving, and all sorts of other activities ?
It would at least, cut down on the number of school shootings perpetrated by children/young adults.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, rangerx said:

Again, I cannot agree more. Our state/province conservation authorities do well to manage these resources (for the most part).

I gather your concern is a slippery slope of losing rights which are inconsequential to matters at hand. That's a fair position.

However, the current trend of mass-shootings by crazy people has transcended from a slippery slope into an outright avalanche, hence the current play field is not level.

Discussing ducks while kids die is beside the point. My taste for duck l'orange can take a back seat to our youth dying needlessly any day of the week.

At the end of the day, it's sad we agree to do it for ducks, but not kids.

I like my guns and I want to keep them. I shouldn't have to give them up because some Rambo-wannabe can't control his testosterone. We should be able to find a compromise that allows me my guns while limiting risk to the public. On the other hand, who really gives a shit if I can't shoot at pieces of paper and tin cans on the weekend? I'd give up every gun I own starting right now if it would save lives. I like to think that I'm not such a dick that I wouldn't give up my guns to save a kid's life.

My big concern is not a slippery slope, it is that I fear we won't make any progress for meaningful reform if people won't take the time to understand those they are in opposition to, and who continue to use inflammatory, emotional, generalized and misinformed statements. Too often we hear people say "ban assault weapons" with no real thought or consensus on what that means exactly, or people scream "2nd Amendment!" as if that is supposed to mean any regulation is an infringement of their rights. 

I was 'accused' once on this site of being 'practical', and I think that is an apt description. I think everyone can agree on two things: The 2nd Amendment is here to stay for now, and no kids should die from firearms. So let's find things that a majority on both sides can get behind that recognize those two truths (e.g. Gun owner must have a secure location for their guns; Universal background checks....) and attack those issue in a unified manner. Save the really contentious issues for later and quit spinning our wheels with them.

Let's get SOMETHING done that will save some lives, and build on that.

[Ten oz]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

It would at least, cut down on the number of school shootings perpetrated by children/young adults.

It would also cut down on the total number of guns bought and sold each year. That potentially would inflate the cost of buying guns which would further reduce the number of guns bought and sold. That inflation would similarly impact the black market. If guns we're more expensive to get less criminals would have them especially considering those most people caught committing armed crimes are poor. 

I am sure there are a lot people out there who consider a parent taking their child hunting to be an important bonding and character building experience. So restricting it is probably Politically not doable. 

I think extra taxation would be a big step in the right direction. Just as federal and local govts pile on extra taxes for Alcohol and Cigarettes there should be many extra fees on both guns and ammunition. Enough to make the cost of each significant enough to influence the way each is treated by consumer. At a hundred dollars for a gun my parents might have bought me a gun if I wanted one badly enough and had someone to take me hunting. At a thousand dollars there is no way they would have considered it. 

 

[zapatos]

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

I know you can be sent off to war at the ripe old age of 18, but Raider has mentioned how many 10 yr olds he knows that own a gun.
And while I realize it is best to train youngsters in their use , if they're going to have a gun, is there any justification in letting children have guns ?

I suspect Raider wasn't implying the 10 yr olds had control of the guns and ammo like they do their play things. My son 'owned' some power tools at a young age but he didn't have access to them unsupervised until he was mature enough and trained enough to use them safely.

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

It's a pity the crickets don't get long to chirp between shootings.

 

31 minutes ago, MigL said:

,...is there any justification in letting children have guns ?

There is only one country in the world where that is considered a sensible question.

[Ten oz]

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

So let's find things that a majority on both sides can get behind that recognize those two truths (e.g. Gun owner must have a secure location for their guns; Universal background checks....) and attack those issue in a unified manner. Save the really contentious issues for later and quit spinning our wheels with them.

Let's get SOMETHING done that will save some lives, and build on that.

That has been the approach for decades and led us to the place we are now. The compromise middle ground approach has failed in every measurable way. So now what?

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I like my guns and I want to keep them. I shouldn't have to give them up because some Rambo-wannabe can't control his testosterone. We should be able to find a compromise that allows me my guns while limiting risk to the public.

What wouldn't this statement apply to? Laws often limit the many because of what a few might do or have done. Anything can be safe if handle safely but that isn't equal to everything being safe. People buying guns at the volume we do here in the U.S. means gun producers are able to invest in optimizing their process and mass producing ever increasing amount at cheaper prices. That leads to more and more people having them. The more people that have them the more likely it is a crazy person gets one or ten. 

[iNow]

35 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Let's get SOMETHING done that will save some lives, and build on that.

We couldn't even get bump stocks banned after Vegas. I'm not usually pessimistic, but am here

[zapatos]

16 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

That has been the approach for decades and led us to the place we are now. The compromise middle ground approach has failed in every measurable way. So now what?

 

I guess we quit trying.

Quote

What wouldn't this statement apply to? Laws often limit the many because of what a few might do or have done. Anything can be safe if handle safely but that isn't equal to everything being safe. People buying guns at the volume we do here in the U.S. means gun producers are able to invest in optimizing their process and mass producing ever increasing amount at cheaper prices. That leads to more and more people having them. The more people that have them the more likely it is a crazy person gets one or ten. 

What's your point? That I shouldn't feel that way?

You sound like you have given up and simply want to complain about the sorry state of the world rather than do something.

[John Cuthber]

37 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'd give up every gun I own starting right now if it would save lives.

Do you recognise that, if you asked them just before their gun killed their child or whatever, most gun owners would say exactly the same sort of thing?

You have no way to know that giving up you guns will save lives or not.

But it is more likely to save lives than to cost them so, so be  consistent, you should give them up.
 

[Sensei]

Gun owners are the most common victims of owning gun in their house.

Suicide, extended suicides, accidental shooting by kid, etc. etc.

 

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Do you recognise that, if you asked them just before their gun killed their child or whatever, most gun owners would say exactly the same sort of thing?

You have no way to know that giving up you guns will save lives or not.

But it is more likely to save lives than to cost them so, so be  consistent, you should give them up.
 

I'm sure that if you asked them just before they accidentally backed over their child with their car and killed them, that people would give up their cars right now.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll keep my guns.

2 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Gun owners are the most common victims of owning gun in their house.

Suicide, extended suicides, accidental shooting by kid, etc. etc.

 

Yes, I think that was brought up earlier in the thread.

[Ten oz]

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I guess we quit trying.

No, those who are in interested in change should stop compromising in advance. Stop acquiescing that certain goals need to be put on the back burner in the name of compromise s that never come to pass. Instead of taking a ton of stuff off the table for fear of complicating negotiations everything needs to be on the table. 

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What's your point? That I shouldn't feel that way?

My point is the way you feel can apply to absolutely anything. That makes redundant. If you like Nuclear weapons and are safe with Nuclear weapons why can't you have Nuclear weapons? The proliferation of certain things needs to be considered. 

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

No, those who are in interested in change should stop compromising in advance. Stop acquiescing that certain goals need to be put on the back burner in the name of compromise s that never come to pass. Instead of taking a ton of stuff off the table for fear of complicating negotiations everything needs to be on the table. 

I suspect that I will see a ban on bump stocks before you see your uncompromising gun regulation demands met, but knock yourself out. I'll stick with my way.

Quote

My point is the way you feel can apply to absolutely anything. That makes redundant. If you like Nuclear weapons and are safe with Nuclear weapons why can't you have Nuclear weapons? The proliferation of certain things needs to be considered. 

This was my point earlier. If you are going to suggest I cannot feel one way about guns and another about nuclear weapons it is a non-starter. I will not debate with someone who makes such outrageous, over-the-top assertions. And good luck taking that approach with a gun nut who has the 2nd Amendment to fall back on.

[Ten oz]

26 minutes ago, iNow said:

We couldn't even get bump stocks banned after Vegas. I'm not usually pessimistic, but am here

Exactly. We are told to come to the table with the obvious stuff every agrees on. Then after getting to the table light are told "oops looks like we can't get that done, oh well".

Fully automatic weapons are already illegal. Bump stocks have no purpose other than converting semi automatic weapons into fully automatic ones. Getting a ban on bump stocks should have been easy. One by one Politicians have come to the table with singular non-divisive requests that have majority support in polling and nothing happens. Time to be more aggressive.

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I suspect that I will see a ban on bump stocks before you see your uncompromising gun regulation demands met, but knock yourself out. I'll stick with my way.

I didn't say "met". I said bring everything to the table. It is a better negotiating position. If what that leads to is a ban on bumps than great. As it stands now merely asking for a ban on bump stocks alone has led to nothing. 

 

6 minutes ago, zapatos said:

This was my point earlier. If you are going to suggest I cannot feel one way about guns and another about nuclear weapons it is a non-starter. I will not debate with someone who makes such outrageous, over-the-top assertions. And good luck taking that approach with a gun nut who has the 2nd Amendment to fall back on.

I called your feelings redundant. I never said you weren't entitled to them. You're mischaracterizing what I've posted. 

[zapatos]

38 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I called your feelings redundant. I never said you weren't entitled to them. You're mischaracterizing what I've posted. 

You stated my sentiment on guns applied equally to nuclear weapons. I in no way mischaracterized what you said. 

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

 

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Gun owners are the most common victims of owning gun in their house.

Suicide, extended suicides, accidental shooting by kid, etc. etc.

 

Yes, I think that was brought up earlier in the thread.

Repeating one more time won't hurt.. especially to people after brainwash, ex-clients of weapon dealers..

They are "smarter" after "accident" (asking "God, why it happened to us?!"), when one member of their family is dead, or entire family is dead..

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Sensei

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, Sensei said:

... especially to people after brainwash, ex-clients of weapon dealers..

Can you expand on who you think is being brainwashed, and how that is occurring?

[Sensei]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Can you expand on who you think is being brainwashed, and how that is occurring?

e.g. they are repeating, and spreading around, NRA slogans..

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Sensei