How can you protect yourself from the darkies if your gun is locked in a safe? It could take you minutes before you start dumping rounds into people's skull. Literally minutes!
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
How can you protect yourself from the darkies if your gun is locked in a safe? It could take you minutes before you start dumping rounds into people's skull. Literally minutes!
So gun owners are racist as well as murderous now are they?
This thread is so tedious no wonder in garners no serious debate.
A few self congratulators ad infinitum.
Think people are just mocking Barros mate. Go through his posts and you will know why. don't know him from other threads but he is being obtuse here.
wow, that's nice....
But yes if someone breaks in during the day I will not have the time to get my gun but they don't know that, at night would be a different story. I live 15-20 minutes from Philadelphia and my door is not locked during the day since my kids and nieces are always in and out and would take me less than 30 seconds to get my firearm.I'm having fun with this thread as well
everything ends up with peoples opinion and I believe people has the right to own guns if they are responsible and I do believe in background checks and safety courses and that's my opinion. People trying to blame guns for everything that's wrong is not the right way to resolve the problems.I'm having fun with this thread as well
more guns to solve the current problems we have with these mass shootings is insane. simple.
I'm having fun with this thread as well
I just don't see the point in giving people the ability to kill others. Guns accomplish faster than anything else.
Just completely disagree with you. I live in the US, and feel no need to own a gun for protection.
I don't hunt, so I don't need it for that. Why do you need one?
And banning 20 clips solves the problem? Come on RD, you're smarter than this. And don't give me the 'it's a start' speech. It's a meaningless gesture meant to make gun control advocates feel like they're doing something "right".
The legislation is hilarious. No more sales, etc but all sales to this point are fine? What good does this thing do? Hopefully this bill dies early. I'm guessing it will.
I guess at least one good thing coming from this is the elected officials are actually reading a bill before they vote on it.....
The best thing to have come out of all this is that any new gun purchases must go through background checks...no loopholes for gun shows.
True that we cant do anything atm about assault weapons already out there. But if the checks isolate the nutters, we have a huge improvement.
There is no logical reason for anyone to protest this. If this involves some wait..so what. There really is no urgency for people to get guns....even a month wait would be well worth the benefits it brings.
True that we cant do anything atm about assault weapons already out there. But if the checks isolate the nutters, we have a huge improvement.
There is no logical reason for anyone to protest this. If this involves some wait..so what. There really is no urgency for people to get guns....even a month wait would be well worth the benefits it brings.
I'd agree with this. I'm very good with a thorough background check.
Its a first step CR. The disadvantages of being able to buy assault weapons are far greater than the enthusiasts who like to shoot them at ranges.
Think we have enough out there to entertain anyone who needs them...gun clubs what have you.
Registering all weapons should be the next step. Gun owners need to be responsible for storing and keeping them safe and knowing where they are.
Think we have enough out there to entertain anyone who needs them...gun clubs what have you.
Registering all weapons should be the next step. Gun owners need to be responsible for storing and keeping them safe and knowing where they are.
Registration's only advantage is to facilitate confiscation later. It offers nothing from a public safety perspective. Canada's long gun registry never stopped any shootings from happening. In fact, there were a few major shooting incidents involving registered firearms on its watch. Our handgun registry, in effect since 1934 has a similar track record, minus the major shooting incidents. Our laws are successful because the system controls access to firearms. That is the crucial element that the US needs to address.
Safe storage legislation is definitely a must. It may not stop any accidental shootings initially but a few individuals prosecuted as a result of accidental shootings would probably make folks think twice about leaving their loaded Glock under the bed.
when I mention registration, I'm thinking of being able to trace guns. I assume all guns have unique serial numbers that cannot easily be erased.
It therefore places the burden of storing and keeping them safe on gun owners. thats where my thinking was going. I accept what you are saying about the experience in canada. though I would have thought, registration would have helped.
It therefore places the burden of storing and keeping them safe on gun owners. thats where my thinking was going. I accept what you are saying about the experience in canada. though I would have thought, registration would have helped.
They do. Stores keep track of this information when they sell you a gun, it's called inventory control.
With that in mind, a universal background check system should create a pseudo-registry. The only thing is that law enforcment agencies would require the store's consent or a warrant to view the information. This is fine, it's part of a healthy and functional justice system.
Back to the background checks, if they are going to do this then they might as well go all in and give people background check cards (i.e gun licences), having one is all that law enforcement would need to prove a storage violation as it would be encumbent on all licencees to safely store or at least ensure they are in their control at all times.
More than that, every gun built has a unique ballistic signature which means it's not particularly difficult for the authorities to trace a gun to it's owner, if need be.
Yeah..understand that. But that does not help in registring the weapon...or is that something some countries do?
I've never understood the desire to own rifles and guns and all that. It took me 34 years to purchase a firearm (well technically 16 as I wasn't legal until 18) and that was after an attempted car-jacking incident and three years after a home burglary (which my gun probably would have been stolen had I owned a gun at the time).
If citizens want to shoot guns and take pics with them then just have gun clubs/ranges that keep regulated guns in storage and citizens can pay an hourly fee to rent and shoot/take pics at the range. There is absolutely zero need to own guns.
And that's from a current gun owner (.45 Springfield full-size).
If citizens want to shoot guns and take pics with them then just have gun clubs/ranges that keep regulated guns in storage and citizens can pay an hourly fee to rent and shoot/take pics at the range. There is absolutely zero need to own guns.
And that's from a current gun owner (.45 Springfield full-size).
what about hunters?
other than that I would agree. I mean if the neighborhood you live in is so unsafe...why live there?...move.
That's not freedom...covering in fear...needing to arm yourself..
other than that I would agree. I mean if the neighborhood you live in is so unsafe...why live there?...move.
That's not freedom...covering in fear...needing to arm yourself..
I've addressed this before but will say it again. Private ownership of firearms is infinitely safer for society than having business or organizations maintain large caches of firearms and ammunition under minimal security in known locations.
You never understood the need yet you own one? Hmmmm.
Is this serious? Move? That's your solution? GTFO.
Very true.
Heck...CR..I would rather move to a neighbourhood that I feel safe in rather than arm myself to the teeth.
Heck...CR..I would rather move to a neighbourhood that I feel safe in rather than arm myself to the teeth.
When you move you assume you have jobs waiting for you on your new place.
you walk to work?
The gun debate on here seems to take the same trajectory as the drugs debate.
User A: "I don't understand why people take drugs and they are addictive and deadly, therefore they should be banned."
User B: "Well, it's not your business why people want to take drugs, and it's safer for them to be legalised for a whole host of reasons."
Pity the User B's of this forum are also the ones who are strongly in favour of gun control regardless of the ridiculous amounts of double-think involved in positing such an argument.
User A: "I don't understand why people take drugs and they are addictive and deadly, therefore they should be banned."
User B: "Well, it's not your business why people want to take drugs, and it's safer for them to be legalised for a whole host of reasons."
Pity the User B's of this forum are also the ones who are strongly in favour of gun control regardless of the ridiculous amounts of double-think involved in positing such an argument.
for those who want to own guns to 'protect themselves' it is just a security blanket. other than those who have no choice we all can live in a very safe neighborhood. As I said hunters excepting, there is no need to arm yourself.
To the drug debate, those saying weed should be legalized...which is primarily what states are going for...it is less harmful than cigs and releases huge amounts of law enforcement money and yes...does not clog the legal system.
To the drug debate, those saying weed should be legalized...which is primarily what states are going for...it is less harmful than cigs and releases huge amounts of law enforcement money and yes...does not clog the legal system.
There is no double-think (whatever that is) involved.
Legalising drugs will improve society as will severely restricting gun ownership. Governments are voted in to govern us which involves restricting absolute freedom if it is for the good of all so we should expect them to do so.
Double-think is a reference to Nineteen-Eighty Four, it's a common reference in Britain. Cognitive dissonance I guess. Regardless, you just displayed it right there in one sentence.
Frightening.
what is frightening is people thinking there is such a thing as absolute freedom
What is fritening is that someone thinks just because a person is elected to an office they now know and should have control of what "restrictions" should be placed on me/us.
These are the same people that believe there is a way the body can protect against rape. That get caught smoking crack with prostitutes. These are the people I should surrender my freedoms to? Not a chance.
That is a fair comment but Cali Red's comments are apt, too.
Everyone has different ideas of what government should be responsible for in day to day life.
So how or who should put restrictions on the "freedoms" on all you libertarians?
care to elaborate who in particular you are referring to there. rape, crack what not...I can guess but??
they can have different ideas...but the law is the law. If you don't like it...change it. We have proper ways to do that.
What some are saying is...their side lost and they know that the majority do not agree with their views...so they will not obey the law.
Very different things here.
Well they then need to face the consequences of not following the law..right?
I wasn't aware the laws only applied to Libertarians. I assumed they applied to all citizens. Seems to me you're making the common, and incorrect, leap that as a Libertarian I don't want any government, not even close to the truth. It also seems to me you feel that somehow an elected official has some wisdom or knowledge that all the rest of us don't have. And that to question them is somehow beyond the pale.
Akin and Bary were the two I made reference to but there are so many more.
Where would civil liberties be if everyone thought like this?
Are you making that stance just because your guy is in power? How about draft dodgers of the Viet Nam era? They were breaking the law? There are countless instances in history where violating the law was the noble thing.
No but a lot of people who live in the city don't have cars.
Draft dodgers faced the consequences of disobeying the law. They were either arrested or had to leave the country. I agree it was a noble thing. All I am saying is if you don't like the law, change it.
I agree we can have bad laws.
But to which of Obama's executive orders...do you have a problem with.... background checks???
come on CR....what exactly don't you like about his orders?
I agree we can have bad laws.
But to which of Obama's executive orders...do you have a problem with.... background checks???
come on CR....what exactly don't you like about his orders?