Gun control

Mike Schatner said:
I have lived in Florida 17 years. Tampa has a decent crime rate and more guns that most places, and more CWP than anywhere. I drive through bad areas of town on my commute. In seventeen years I have year to hear a gun shot (other that at range) or be near a crime involving a gun. I don't know anyone else that has been involved in a crime with a gun either.
Click to expand...
Do you live in Tampa or Amelia Island? I don't mean to get too personal.
 
Achilles McCool said:
Amelia Island is a beautiful place!

back on subject, just because you haven't experienced a crime involving a gun or know anyone that has doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Oh it absolutely exists but its not as wide spread as many people think. Even when there are shootings is nearly always in specific areas involving certain groups. Its not that prevalent enough to live in fear or let it effect your life significantly.
 
Mike Schatner said:
Oh it absolutely exists but its not as wide spread as many people think. Even when there are shootings is nearly always in specific areas involving certain groups. Its not that prevalent enough to live in fear or let it effect your life significantly.
Click to expand...
I don't live my life in fear. I just believe in being prepared.

I might never be involved in a car accident, but I'll continue to wear my seatbelt. If I lived my life by saying, "I've never been in a crash and I don't know anyone that has" causing me to not wear my seatbelt, then I might not be prepared in the future. That said, I hope that I will never need to use a gun to defend myself, and I hope that my ex never needs to use a weapon (she prefers a can of mace in her purse) to defend herself. But we are prepared.
 
Achilles McCool said:
I don't live my life in fear. I just believe in being prepared.

I might never be involved in a car accident, but I'll continue to wear my seatbelt. If I lived my life by saying, "I've never been in a crash and I don't know anyone that has" causing me to not wear my seatbelt, then I might not be prepared in the future. That said, I hope that I will never need to use a gun to defend myself, and I hope that my ex never needs to use a weapon (she prefers a can of mace in her purse) to defend herself. But we are prepared.
Click to expand...


Where do you live and do you regularly carry?
 
Mike Schatner said:
Where do you live and do you regularly carry?
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, Florida.

Yes, I carry, but I don't think everyone should. It should be a personal decision, and if the person makes the decision to carry, then they should obviously go through the CCW permit class, but also yearly training after receiving the permit.

I know of an elderly lady that lives a few miles away, that has been the victim of 2 home invasions, and she finally decided that she was the only person that would be able to defend herself. 78 years old, and she realised that the police would only get there after the fact, so she went through the CCW class and now owns a 9mm.
I would love to live in a society (or world) that didn't need guns to protect the innocent, but until guns disappear completely, then the average law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect themselves.
 
Achilles McCool said:
Believe it or not, Florida.

Yes, I carry, but I don't think everyone should. It should be a personal decision, and if the person makes the decision to carry, then they should obviously go through the CCW permit class, but also yearly training after receiving the permit.

I know of an elderly lady that lives a few miles away, that has been the victim of 2 home invasions, and she finally decided that she was the only person that would be able to defend herself. 78 years old, and she realised that the police would only get there after the fact, so she went through the CCW class and now owns a 9mm.
I would love to live in a society (or world) that didn't need guns to protect the innocent, but until guns disappear completely, then the average law-abiding citizens deserve the right to protect themselves.
Click to expand...

Can I ask is there in psyc analysis done for any of these permits or licences?
 
Achilles McCool said:
I know of an elderly lady that lives a few miles away, that has been the victim of 2 home invasions, and she finally decided that she was the only person that would be able to defend herself. 78 years old, and she realised that the police would only get there after the fact, so she went through the CCW class and now owns a 9mm.
Click to expand...

I find that to be a pretty lame argument TBH. My Nana had three home invasions in two months back in England. Every time she replaced her TV and stuff they came back and stole the new stuff. Although very unsettling and devastating on her nerves it was not a life threatening situation. Escalating that to a potential deadly confrontation seems an over reaction IMO.
 
InLevyITrust said:
Can I ask is there in psyc analysis done for any of these permits or licences?
Click to expand...
No evaluation. Like @Mike Schatner said, there's a background check.

The Psych Evaluation is a slippery slope. Certain groups/people have argued that many veterans returning from overseas could be considered a risk once they are diagnosed with PTSD, but then the anti-gun politicans could draw up any regulation stating that any Psych risk should be a flag. Very slippery slope!
 
Mike Schatner said:
I find that to be a pretty lame argument TBH. My Nana had three home invasions in two months back in England. Every time she replaced her TV and stuff they came back and stole the new stuff. Although very unsettling and devastating on her nerves it was not a life threatening situation. Escalating that to a potential deadly confrontation seems an over reaction IMO.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry to hear that about your Nana, but that doesn't change the fact that the woman I know was held up at gun point twice, in her own house.
Lame agrument? Tell that to her.
 
Achilles McCool said:
I'm sorry to hear that about your Nana, but that doesn't change the fact that the woman I know was held up at gun point twice, in her own house.
Lame agrument? Tell that to her.
Click to expand...


Makes more sense to improve her security and get cameras. The police seem to track down perpetrators very fast here. I am not being funny a 78 year old woman would be a liability with a firearm. I would rather be robbed at gun point than take someone life over a few hundred dollars of possessions.
 
Achilles McCool said:
No evaluation. Like @Mike Schatner said, there's a background check.

The Psych Evaluation is a slippery slope. Certain groups/people have argued that many veterans returning from overseas could be considered a risk once they are diagnosed with PTSD, but then the anti-gun politicans could draw up any regulation stating that any Psych risk should be a flag. Very slippery slope!
Click to expand...

To be fair they would be a risk, the gun laws clearly need amending or we will continue to see mass killings, I mean it seems to be getting to a point where most people are saying "oh its another one".
 
Achilles McCool said:
Its a potential deadly confrontation the minute a criminal breaks into your house with a firearm!!!! Come on, man! You can do better than that!
Click to expand...


Criminals that break into most houses tend to have one agenda, stealing property. Install a reinforced door on the bedroom and make sure they can't enter through your bedrooms windows. If someone is in your house call the police, turn the lights on and make noise. They will soon leave.

Turning to a firearm is a slippery slope. Will you hear them before they already have the upper hand? Are you a better shot? What if there are three or four armed assailants, are you as handy as Billy the Kid with a weapon?
 
InLevyITrust said:
To be fair they would be a risk, the gun laws clearly need amending or we will continue to see mass killings, I mean it seems to be getting to a point where most people are saying "oh its another one".
Click to expand...
How do you know if they'd be a risk? To you, everyone with a gun is a risk, right?
 
Mike Schatner said:
Makes more sense to improve her security and get cameras. The police seem to track down perpetrators very fast here. I am not being funny a 78 year old woman would be a liability with a firearm. I would rather be robbed at gun point than take someone life over a few hundred dollars of possessions.
Click to expand...
You are still talking generalities! Not every 78 year old woman that suffered multiple home invasions should protect themselves with a firearm. This particular woman decided that enough is enough, and went through the proper training and is now able to protect herself. Trust me, I've seen her on the gun range; she is anything but a liability.
On a side note, you stated a few pages back that you were a "gun owner". Can I ask you why you own a firearm?
 
Mike Schatner said:
Criminals that break into most houses tend to have one agenda, stealing property. Install a reinforced door on the bedroom and make sure they can't enter through your bedrooms windows. If someone is in your house call the police, turn the lights on and make noise. They will soon leave.

Turning to a firearm is a slippery slope. Will you hear them before they already have the upper hand? Are you a better shot? What if there are three or four armed assailants, are you as handy as Billy the Kid with a weapon?
Click to expand...
So the option that you are championing is to lay down and accept it? Get a camera so hopefully law enforcement can track them down?? And what if the home invaders are there for more than stealing property??
 
Achilles McCool said:
On a side note, you stated a few pages back that you were a "gun owner". Can I ask you why you own a firearm?
Click to expand...

I am into sports shootings, always have been even when i lived in the UK. I am a member of a Sporting Clays club and a long range riffle range. I enjoy shooting a lot but would never want to shoot anything other than a clay or paper target. I have hand guns and an AR but they done interest me that much. I also have a CWP but mainly to speed up the buying process. I don't carry.
 
InLevyITrust said:
I'm talking about people with PTSD, there is a risk there.
Click to expand...
What if the government decided that anyone with depression was a risk? Then what if they went back 20 years into your school psych records and saw that you stated to a school doctor that you felt moody and often depressed? Could the powers that be take away that person’s weapons? Very, very slippery slope!
Also, are you a doctor? What degree of PTSD would be considered a liability for owning a firearm? A soldier that comes home and states that he’s having difficulties adjusting to life back home? This would be a man or woman that you relied on to defend your country, and now you want to take away his or her weapon to make yourself more comfortable?
 
Mike Schatner said:
I am into sports shootings, always have been even when i lived in the UK. I am a member of a Sporting Clays club and a long range riffle range. I enjoy shooting a lot but would never want to shoot anything other than a clay or paper target. I have hand guns and an AR but they done interest me that much. I also have a CWP but mainly to speed up the buying process. I don't carry.
Click to expand...
Can I ask why you bought a hand gun or the AR?
 
Achilles McCool said:
What if the government decided that anyone with depression was a risk? Then what if they went back 20 years into your school psych records and saw that you stated to a school doctor that you felt moody and often depressed? Could the powers that be take away that person’s weapons? Very, very slippery slope!
Also, are you a doctor? What degree of PTSD would be considered a liability for owning a firearm? A soldier that comes home and states that he’s having difficulties adjusting to life back home? This would be a man or woman that you relied on to defend your country, and now you want to take away his or her weapon to make yourself more comfortable?
Click to expand...

Why are you making this personal? I feel perfectly comfortable and safe but I don't believe someone who is assessed as having a mental health issue should own a firearm, I think most people would think the same as me.

I mean does the number of gun deaths in the US not even bother you?
 
Mike Schatner said:
I am an avid shooter, period. I like to shoot all kinds of firearms. I got an AR for range shooting but its just not accurate or enjoyable enough. I enjoy firing a few rounds or pistol and AR occasionally though.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I'm not judging. But I think that everyone should have the right that you have, no?
 
InLevyITrust said:
Why are you making this personal? I feel perfectly comfortable and safe but I don't believe someone who is assessed as having a mental health issue should own a firearm, I think most people would think the same as me.
Click to expand...
I'm trying not to make it personal, but you said that you felt that someone with PTSD shouldn't own a firearm, and I strongly disagree with you.
Please don't use the weak argument: "most people would think the same as me"... would you accept my argument if I replied by saying most people would agree with me? Strawman
 
Mike Schatner said:
Why do you need more than ten round magazines? Personally I think rifles should be restricted to five rounds. You never need more than five rounds hunting.
Click to expand...
Well, if you think that the 2nd Amendment is only for sporting/hunting, then I can see why you'd think that 5 round clips should be the maximum.
 
Achilles McCool said:
I'm trying not to make it personal, but you said that you felt that someone with PTSD shouldn't own a firearm, and I strongly disagree with you.
Please don't use the weak argument: "most people would think the same as me"... would you accept my argument if I replied by saying most people would agree with me? Strawman
Click to expand...

A strawman argument is one you cannot debate, I wasn't trying to add to my argument with that statement.

Your telling me that someone with PTSD should be allowed to own a gun without question, if you sincerely believe that there is not much left for me to argue with you about, other than go meet someone with PTSD.

I mean you don't see the link between the US gun laws and the number of gun related deaths?
 
Achilles McCool said:
Well, if you think that the 2nd Amendment is only for sporting/hunting, then I can see why you'd think that 5 round clips should be the maximum.
Click to expand...


The second amendment was written in a time when people owned muskets just like the military. Falling back on the 2nd Amendment is a ridiculous gun rights argument.

The needle needs moving on the gun issue and small baby steps like magazine restrictions is a good start. People own ARs with 3 round mags but you can't rapid fire at a range anyway. It would impact most peoples recreational fun one bit to limited the, to five rounds.
 
Mike Schatner said:
The second amendment was written in a time when people owned muskets just like the military. Falling back on the 2nd Amendment is a ridiculous gun rights argument.

The needle needs moving on the gun issue and small baby steps like magazine restrictions is a good start. People own ARs with 3 round mags but you can't rapid fire at a range anyway. It would impact most peoples recreational fun one bit to limited the, to five rounds.
Click to expand...

This is precisely it laws were made to be changed and out dates ones in the 2nd amendment.
 
InLevyITrust said:
A strawman argument is one you cannot debate, I wasn't trying to add to my argument with that statement.

Your telling me that someone with PTSD should be allowed to own a gun without question, if you sincerely believe that there is not much left for me to argue with you about, other than go meet someone with PTSD.

I mean you don't see the link between the US gun laws and the number of gun related deaths?
Click to expand...
So many things for me to answer!
when you say, "most people would agree with me", then where are you leaving me any room to agrue?

Yes, I'm telling you that certain people with PTSD should still have the right to own a firearm. I've unfortunately met, and known, many people and soldiers with PTSD. The disorder is wide-ranging and most of the men (and a few women that have returned from serving) that are diagnosed with PTSD are ordinary, regular citizens just like you and me. Tell me what part of the diagnosis of PTSD makes them dangerous? A liability? If you can answer that, then I'd tell you that very few people who suffer from PTSD are on the far end of the range.

I do see a link betweeen gun lawa and gun related deaths, but until you figure out a way for guns to not exist, then I will argue that the law-abiding citizen deserves (if he or she chooses) to defend themselves legally.
 
Mike Schatner said:
The second amendment was written in a time when people owned muskets just like the military. Falling back on the 2nd Amendment is a ridiculous gun rights argument.

The needle needs moving on the gun issue and small baby steps like magazine restrictions is a good start. People own ARs with 3 round mags but you can't rapid fire at a range anyway. It would impact most peoples recreational fun one bit to limited the, to five rounds.
Click to expand...
Wow! Just wow! Please go back and read the history of the US and the reason that the founding fathers added the 2nd Amendment into the Bill of Rights
 
InLevyITrust said:
This is precisely it laws were made to be changed and out dates ones in the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...
The constitution is not a living-breathing document. It doesn't change when the wind changes direction. If the law were to change, it needs to be voted on/ratified by congress and then followed. America is different from England.
 
Achilles McCool said:
So many things for me to answer!
when you say, "most people would agree with me", then where are you leaving me any room to agrue?

Yes, I'm telling you that certain people with PTSD should still have the right to own a firearm. I've unfortunately met, and known, many people and soldiers with PTSD. The disorder is wide-ranging and most of the men (and a few women that have returned from serving) that are diagnosed with PTSD are ordinary, regular citizens just like you and me. Tell me what part of the diagnosis of PTSD makes them dangerous? A liability? If you can answer that, then I'd tell you that very few people who suffer from PTSD are on the far end of the range.

I do see a link betweeen gun lawa and gun related deaths, but until you figure out a way for guns to not exist, then I will argue that the law-abiding citizen deserves (if he or she chooses) to defend themselves legally.
Click to expand...

I don't get why you feel this massive need to argue your point, the fact is outside of America most people would say America needs to look at its gun laws. I have known people with PTSD, I am from Northern Ireland and have friends and relatives affected by the troubles, which i wont go into on here.

You have just said it yourself the term PTSD is wide ranging that is why people need to be assessed for the risk to them selves and others. PTSD can cause, hallucinations and flash backs triggered by the most be-nine thing to the point where they don't know where they are. Most comman symptom of PTSD is depression or guilt, so they need protection from themselves. I agree most live normal lives and only suffer "episodes" but these episodes are a risk.

I'm not singling out PTSD here, I mean how is handing a gun to a person who's mental state known a good idea?
 
Achilles McCool said:
The constitution is not a living-breathing document. It doesn't change when the wind changes direction. If the law were to change, it needs to be voted on/ratified by congress and then followed. America is different from England.
Click to expand...

So it can be changed, that's the point, its not impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.