In what way?
Responsible Gun Owners
- Thread starter Stryker
- Start date
In what way?
because you are here presenting the argument/discussion for doing just that.
in hindsight, the statement contradicts your stance in the OP.
Cope, I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think you see the disconnect I am seeing. I see you saying the people are the problem, but all of your solutions are gun restrictions and regulations. I don't think you see that. Nearly every suggestion is somehow limiting an individual's, or a group of individuals' rights to bear arms. Your quotes below are a bit all over the map, if I may say.
Each of the following aim to keep people from having guns, based on some situation. Like Sarge pointed out, do you keep a fat guy from being able to have access to a gun? Do you realize that being drunk in public, vandalism, and reckless driving can be filed as felonies? I once got ticketed driving 30+ over the speed limit. That is reckless driving. So I can't own a gun because of a reckless driving ticket? Point being, each of these IS legislating guns and citizens' rights to guns. You're indirectly doing so via this "people" argument.
Then you suggest the following. The first I am fine with. The second, I am not.
At another point you say this...ok wait what? Your prior suggestions are about restricting access to guns, but now you're saying your not for restricting guns?
You further go on to say this...the right of owning guns should not be diminished, you agree...yet previous you'd suggested countless ways you would restrict the rights of people to own guns.
Then this...you can't regulate the guns...but you should regulate the gun owners...which is in fact regulating guns. I don't think you are seeing this.
If we get into the business of determining who can or who can't own guns, we are in effect restricting gun ownership. Then, where does it stop? The old slippery slope. Felonies, dishonorable discharges, mental illness are all things you suggest should limit gun ownership. Those are all awash with problems as they lump in way too many people that may have had these issues but who should NOT simultaneously have their rights to gun ownership infringed upon. What's next? A neighbor doesn't like you and suspects you may be mentally ill and you lose your rights? You need to have had a certain GPA in HS and/or college to own a gun? You can't be a member of a certain political organization and own a gun?
The bottom line is that by regulating "people" you are at the very same time regulating access to guns. It's one in the same.
When I say there is a people problem, I do not advocate these measures. I mean we need to fix the problems with people - the over prescription of psychotropic drugs that the vast majority of these mass shooters were on or coming off of; we need to get mental health intervention for people. We need to fix the culture of violence we glorify in rap, movies, TV and video games that desensitizes our population to violence; we need to fix the drug problems and gang problems; we need to address the economic problems; we need to fix our schools.
Our people problem is a cultural problem.
I'll say again from the beginning, to what problem? Mass shootings are not an epidemic. Not even close. Gun violence in general? Gun violence has subsided and is lower now than it was in 1990. It's getting better.
Let's fix the cultural problems I mentioned. That's the start. They are big big problems however. Eliminating or restricting guns won't eliminate those problems.
just kicking around this idea... what if we made guns illegal in Chicago?
Fuggit....I'll pile on.
Cope, the solutions you proposed all focus on the gun and gun ownership as the blame for these mass shootings, with the solution being to limit *legal* access to guns. Many of your solutions have been tried and some are law currently.
Tim and others already said it. Until you focus on the cause of these shootings, you cannot solve this problem. The cause? Myriad. A sick society with warped values and a disregard for human life, to be brief. A generation of children impacted by weak parenting and fatherless households. An abandonment of traditional values...too many things to name.
Nevertheless this is a good discussion and one that should be had without ridicule and finger-pointing.
How do we fix it? I'm afraid that's going to take a brave acknowledgement of some of the things I mentioned with a bent toward changing them. An adoption, as a nation, of a set of core values that we all can aspire. We had those once....you know....back when there were fewer mass shootings and gun murders.
How do we mitigate it in the meantime? For one, get rid of this concept of gun free zones. School children are valuable assets. They guard banks with guns and man-traps. We should have these in schools. No such thing as a gun free zone anywhere. Make potential shooters wary that someone among his target rich environment might shoot back and you will see much fewer of these mass shooting attempts. I'd bet a month's pay on it.
See, this is the way the Politics side should be. An excellent discussion and sharing of thoughts on all sides.
And Tim, I'm not married to these ideas, I'm presenting them to start a conversation. I now fully understand your broader meaning of infringed thanks to you, Supe, and Chuck responding to my questions, and having a dialogue.
I'd be all for ending gun free zones, also making sure children's lives are protected, by either having an armed guard, or a close police presence to these schools. City planers could definitely start putting precincts next to school clusters (as schools are starting to be built clustered together with elementary/middle/HS in a row).
The idea that I like the best was actually the one I saved for last, and was the biggest reason for me to start this discussion.
I think the gun owner should be civilly responsible for any crime done with their gun, criminally, I'm still not sure, there are a lot of variables here as well. What are your thoughts?
I have to work Fri/Sat, so I won't be able to participate in the discussion until Sunday. Looking forward to it though!
And Tim, I'm not married to these ideas, I'm presenting them to start a conversation. I now fully understand your broader meaning of infringed thanks to you, Supe, and Chuck responding to my questions, and having a dialogue.
I'd be all for ending gun free zones, also making sure children's lives are protected, by either having an armed guard, or a close police presence to these schools. City planers could definitely start putting precincts next to school clusters (as schools are starting to be built clustered together with elementary/middle/HS in a row).
The idea that I like the best was actually the one I saved for last, and was the biggest reason for me to start this discussion.
I think the gun owner should be civilly responsible for any crime done with their gun, criminally, I'm still not sure, there are a lot of variables here as well. What are your thoughts?
I have to work Fri/Sat, so I won't be able to participate in the discussion until Sunday. Looking forward to it though!
Cope, first I want to say I appreciate your demeanor. You've kept it calm, cool and collected throughout. You've been roasted a bit here and there, a lot by me. You've kept it civil. I appreciate that and thank you for that.
And I do appreciate you wanting to look at this "issue." I still refuse to call it a problem, because in my mind's eye, I see gun ownership as a core reason why this country is great. Yes, we suffer collateral damage from guns. People die senselessly due to gun violence. But overall, for hundreds of years, gun ownership is one of the reasons this country remains. I believe that. For a thousand reasons I won't get into.
Onto your point...
I "get" the idea of holding the owner accountable. I do "get" it, but I don't think it is feasible. What if I walk into my house one night after one of my business trips. Sometimes I leave my house at 5:30 AM to get on a flight to Chicago, then connect to a flight to Arkansas that gets me in there at 11:30AM their time (I'm EST). I do meetings from 1-3P with clients, rush to the airport and board a 6PM flight to Chicago, then connect to DC and I land at midnight and drive the 45 minutes home. I get to my house at 12:45AM. I've been up for 20+ hours and I mistakenly forget to lock my vehicle. I go to bed and crash.
Kids in the neighborhood get into my vehicle, hot wire it and take it for a joy ride and kill someone in a car crash. I guess you could make the argument that I am liable. As a human being though, should I be? Or should they be held responsible for stealing my vehicle and killing someone?
I live in MD like you do.We have speed cameras all over this state. If my sister visits for a week and drives my vehicle and gets a speeding ticket via a speed camera, guess who pays the bill? I do. Is that right? I don't think so. She was driving.
I believe we gun owners should be responsible for our weapons. They can kill. Period. I'm all for that. But so too can cars. And knives. Do we extrapolate your position to everything we own? If someone takes a baseball bat from my garage and kills someone with it, should I be held accountable? If someone takes the chainsaw I own and hacks someone to death with it, should I go to prison? If someone takes Clorox from my laundry room and uses it to poison someone, am I to blame?
I'm not sure this approach is reasonable either.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Power to the People!
New NRA president says gun control activists are 'civil terrorists'
Oliver North compares NRA’s struggles to the civil rights movement
Activists pushing for stronger gun laws are engaged in “civil terrorism”, Oliver North.
“They’re not activists – this is civil terrorism. This is the kind of thing that’s never been seen against a civil rights organization in America,” Oliver North told the Washington Examiner. “You go back to the terrible days of Jim Crow and those kinds of things – even there you didn’t have this kind of thing.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ys-gun-control-activists-are-civil-terrorists
New NRA president says gun control activists are 'civil terrorists'
Oliver North compares NRA’s struggles to the civil rights movement
Activists pushing for stronger gun laws are engaged in “civil terrorism”, Oliver North.
“They’re not activists – this is civil terrorism. This is the kind of thing that’s never been seen against a civil rights organization in America,” Oliver North told the Washington Examiner. “You go back to the terrible days of Jim Crow and those kinds of things – even there you didn’t have this kind of thing.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ys-gun-control-activists-are-civil-terrorists
Both Cope and Tim are making logical points and it is refreshing to see an adult conversation.
Tim made a valid argument as to where does it end, and applying it to everything we own being used as a weapon. It still comes down to the individual that is pulling the trigger and not necessarily where they obtained the weapon.
My take is that if an individual provides a weapon to someone they know is mentally unstable, then they should be held accountable.
Was it the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter that let him have access and use of the family weapons?
Tim made a valid argument as to where does it end, and applying it to everything we own being used as a weapon. It still comes down to the individual that is pulling the trigger and not necessarily where they obtained the weapon.
My take is that if an individual provides a weapon to someone they know is mentally unstable, then they should be held accountable.
Was it the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter that let him have access and use of the family weapons?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,804
- Points
- 113
Yes, the mother bought the guns for him as gifts. He was a target shooter at gun clubs as a hobby. He was a weird kid, but according to all reports he showed no propensity for violence, that anyone knew of.
Even if she had not purchased the guns, he was an adult and there is nothing in his background which would have precluded him from buying guns himself. No violent or criminal history, no mental health confinements, nothing that would show up in a background check.
Last edited:
Did he not kill her, just prior to going on the shooting spree?
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,432
- Reaction score
- 5,504
- Points
- 113
So is it safe to surmise that you are also in favor of psychiatric background checks for gun purchases?
Can't see that happening without changing HIPAA laws. And one would hope they would classify liberalism as a mental disorder.
Thanks Tim. I'm not the type of person that has to be right all the time. I'm happy to listen to all sides to make the best educated decision. I'm also glad that you realized I'm not here to attack different ideas, and appreciate civil debate. It is possible here. First and foremost, we're all Steelers fans, so I'm not going to deride my "Steeler Family" just for differences in opinion.
You make good points at extending the litigation to other dangerous objects, though IMHO, this litigation would begin and end with guns only. We've already established the difference between cars and guns/ Licenses for both being unequal. Though vehicles are the only other thing listed, that can kill a group of people.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 7,497
- Reaction score
- 5,032
- Points
- 113
The fact is that none of this would do any good to stop school shootings or any other shooting. It's just more bull **** to infringe on lawful gun owners rights. Nothing more nothing less. How in the hell is licensing people or safety courses going to stop a moron from shooting up a place? It's not. It's just another attempt to ban guns that liberals don't like. Period. End of story.
Also cars aren't the only thing that can cause mass killings. Maybe the only thing Tim listed but certainly not the only thing that can kill many people. Did you not see the knife welding guy that killed a bunch of people a few weeks ago? How about fertilizers? What about Airplanes? Trains? Boats? Axe?
Seriously this is insane.
Also cars aren't the only thing that can cause mass killings. Maybe the only thing Tim listed but certainly not the only thing that can kill many people. Did you not see the knife welding guy that killed a bunch of people a few weeks ago? How about fertilizers? What about Airplanes? Trains? Boats? Axe?
Seriously this is insane.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,529
- Reaction score
- 22,332
- Points
- 113
Sarge got it all for me.
And I'll add
Stop ******* with the people who will never have any intent of doing wrong. Those are the folks who will have your back. Those are the people who will shoot these ********. Since when dis criminals care about any laws. You can make all of the laws and regulations until you're blue in the face. It won't do **** for those who absolutely don't give a ****. And just like illegal drugs,you'll always be able to buy them. How do you stop the individual who is willing to trade his life to carry out evil deeds? You shoot him a few times center mass. Good guys killing bad guys save lives.
And fix society this bs wasn't going on 30-40 years ago. Which is even more reason for good people to own firearms and train with them until you know them like the back of your hand.
No such thing as an assault weapon. Just semi automatic rifles,hand guns and shotguns. You can take a rock and smash someone's head in...that was an assault rock. The first murder ever done was with a rock...
Fix society! Until then arm every decent person to take out bad guys faster and save lives. Those stupid gun free zones may as well be called sitting suck zones too. Got to go!
And I'll add
Stop ******* with the people who will never have any intent of doing wrong. Those are the folks who will have your back. Those are the people who will shoot these ********. Since when dis criminals care about any laws. You can make all of the laws and regulations until you're blue in the face. It won't do **** for those who absolutely don't give a ****. And just like illegal drugs,you'll always be able to buy them. How do you stop the individual who is willing to trade his life to carry out evil deeds? You shoot him a few times center mass. Good guys killing bad guys save lives.
And fix society this bs wasn't going on 30-40 years ago. Which is even more reason for good people to own firearms and train with them until you know them like the back of your hand.
No such thing as an assault weapon. Just semi automatic rifles,hand guns and shotguns. You can take a rock and smash someone's head in...that was an assault rock. The first murder ever done was with a rock...
Fix society! Until then arm every decent person to take out bad guys faster and save lives. Those stupid gun free zones may as well be called sitting suck zones too. Got to go!
Welcome back Vader! It's been a while man.
Also thanks for adding to the discussion. Do you have any thoughts on how to improve the country here?
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 7,497
- Reaction score
- 5,032
- Points
- 113
It has been awhile. Crime has been on the steady decline for decades now. The media make it seem like people are dying at higher rates when that just isn't the case. If you really want to stop the crazy nuts looking for publicity then make it illegal to report the persons name. Of course this is illegal and against the constitution. But if you want to do something that will really help and don't care about how to do it then this is the best thing. Or maybe make it illegal to release the name for 5 years? Dealing with the guns isn't going to work.
semi-automatic crossbows, right? not bow and arrows. so they can still play Yankees and Native Americans.
Chuck You Schumer shat out more proof of how stupid he is. He says 3D printers can make “fully semiautomatic” firearms. Flog, are you one of his advisors?
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/28/schumer-3d-printed-guns-open-door-fully-semiautomatic-weapon/
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/07/28/schumer-3d-printed-guns-open-door-fully-semiautomatic-weapon/
I feel bad for all the part full-time workers who will lose their jobs at the firearms factories.
