Gun Legislation, Crime, and Events

[Netnerd]

42 minutes ago, Archie said:

Firearms don't kill people, people kill people.  Taking away firearms (and its something that will never happen) would only cause people to change their method. How many guns did McVeigh use? None and bombs are illegal.  Do you think people will suddenly have a change of heart about killing or violence if their method of causing it changes?  No, they will just change how they do it.

People will no longer be able to defend themselves against aggressors.  I know the lefties think people should not be able to defend themselves and should just laydown and die but that won't happen either.  Eliminating firearms would only cause more problems and the vast majority of gun owners would never give up their guns anyway.   Remember what happened when Germany didn't allow the Jewish people to own firearms in the 1930's.  So far I've not heard any good argument why firearms should be eliminated. 

Guns are WAY easier than bombs to acquire and use. More precise, too.

Guns are WAY more lethally efficient than knives or hammers.

Why throw a plentiful supply of guns into a population of too many who struggle with mental health issues?

[oblong]

Generally speaking, I know i can walk in now and get a gun, beyond any waiting period.  I have no record and no flags, etc.  I'm just a normal dude with some cash.

That should not be the case.  The last time I fired a gun was 2019 in Texas when I asked my brother in law to take me to a range.  That might have been the only time I fired a handgun other than a .38 in TN out in the woods.  I've shot rifles here and there with scouts and again with family in the woods.  I'm not a gun person.  

I don't have a problem for the most part with people who are.  When I went to the range I saw the appeal.  Like going to a driving range.  Nothing wrong with that.

But there should be restrictions on who, when, and what kind of guns we can get.

 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, oblong said:

But there should be restrictions on who, when, and what kind of guns we can get.

 

and that's the other bait and switch we always get from guys like Kirk: "Responsible guns controls would be OK" but then every conceivable measure of any kind is reflexively opposed. So those are not honest positions, they are just rhetorical fig leaves. 

[oblong]

38 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

and that's the other bait and switch we always get from guys like Kirk: "Responsible guns controls would be OK" but then every conceivable measure of any kind is reflexively opposed. So those are not honest positions, they are just rhetorical fig leaves. 

Sandy Hook was a pivotal moment for me when it comes to political leanings.  When the GOP came out and was like "no... we're not having any discussions" I knew then they were crazy people.  If the knowledge of toddlers being nearly sawed in half with a gun doesn't move a person to start having a conversation on what can be done then there is no point.  Obviously something is missing from their soul.   I wanted away from those people and they've shown since they are as crazy as I thought.

[ewsieg]

Taking the emotion out of it, I agree with Kirk at a basic level that the 2nd amendment is important, but with it comes costs.  As I mentioned before about Kirk, he put out statements like he did about the 2nd amendment (and other things) in order to stir up the emotion that comes against it, making it easier for him to outline his talking points and negating an emotionally charged response.  That headline response can be understood better as he talked through his reasoning, but he wanted people to react to the headline first.

I am pro 2nd amendment despite knowing it will result in some needless deaths.  I am pro 4th amendment despite knowing it will result in some bad people getting away with illegal activities.  I am pro 1st amendment despite knowing some vile speech will get said.

That said, I don't think people should assemble in a manner that prevents me from driving to work, I don't think people should be able to be able to threaten people with their speech, and I don't think it should be as easy as it is to get a gun, or keep it.

 

[pfife]

3 hours ago, Archie said:

Firearms don't kill people, people kill people.  Taking away firearms (and its something that will never happen) would only cause people to change their method. How many guns did McVeigh use? None and bombs are illegal.  Do you think people will suddenly have a change of heart about killing or violence if their method of causing it changes?  No, they will just change how they do it.

People will no longer be able to defend themselves against aggressors.  I know the lefties think people should not be able to defend themselves and should just laydown and die but that won't happen either.  Eliminating firearms would only cause more problems and the vast majority of gun owners would never give up their guns anyway.   Remember what happened when Germany didn't allow the Jewish people to own firearms in the 1930's.  So far I've not heard any good argument why firearms should be eliminated. 

I agree that you believe that

[pfife]

33 minutes ago, oblong said:

Sandy Hook was a pivotal moment for me when it comes to political leanings.  When the GOP came out and was like "no... we're not having any discussions" I knew then they were crazy people.  If the knowledge of toddlers being nearly sawed in half with a gun doesn't move a person to start having a conversation on what can be done then there is no point.  Obviously something is missing from their soul.   I wanted away from those people and they've shown since they are as crazy as I thought.

Sandy Hook impacted me more than any other political event except 9/11. 

[pfife]

The second amendment is really stupid.

[gehringer_2]

14 minutes ago, pfife said:

The second amendment is really stupid.

Since at least on major reason for it's existence was to protect slavers from slaves, you wouldn't expect that set of motivations to produce a positive legacy.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, ewsieg said:

Taking the emotion out of it, I agree with Kirk at a basic level that the 2nd amendment is important, but with it comes costs.  As I mentioned before about Kirk, he put out statements like he did about the 2nd amendment (and other things) in order to stir up the emotion that comes against it, making it easier for him to outline his talking points and negating an emotionally charged response.  That headline response can be understood better as he talked through his reasoning, but he wanted people to react to the headline first.

I am pro 2nd amendment despite knowing it will result in some needless deaths.  I am pro 4th amendment despite knowing it will result in some bad people getting away with illegal activities.  I am pro 1st amendment despite knowing some vile speech will get said.

That said, I don't think people should assemble in a manner that prevents me from driving to work, I don't think people should be able to be able to threaten people with their speech, and I don't think it should be as easy as it is to get a gun, or keep it.

 

I think if you live a wild area, it's perfectly reasonable to be armed. I stayed with friend recently that has black bear and wolves moving on his driveway at night. And sure nature is just all cuddly all the time (not). I don't expect people to have to take their chances with a bear guarding cubs or a male alpha predator in a rutting craze. And I'd gladly see a lot more hunting of the XS deer population that prevents me from growing anything in a garden in my neighbor hood. So I'm not against guns for utilitarian purposes. But very few people have any legitimate need for a handgun, and no-one needs an assault weapon.

If guns are to be present, every gun and every owner needs to be registered and the ballistics of every weapon need be filed before the weapon is sold and periodically re-verified.

Edited September 29 by gehringer_2

[Motown Bombers]

Canada has expansive wilderness and hunting and people own guns. They just don’t own handguns and automatic weapons and their homicide rate is significantly lower. 

[CMRivdogs]

27 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think if you live a wild area, it's perfectly reasonable to be armed. I stayed with friend recently that has black bear and wolves moving on his driveway at night. And sure nature is just all cuddly all the time (not). I don't expect people to have to take their chances with a bear guarding cubs or a male alpha predator in a rutting craze. And I'd gladly see a lot more hunting of the XS deer population that prevents me from growing anything in a garden in my neighbor hood. So I'm not against guns for utilitarian purposes. But very few people have any legitimate need for a handgun, and no-one needs an assault weapon.

If guns are to be present, every gun and every owner needs to be registered and the ballistics of every weapon need be filed before the weapon is sold and periodically re-verified.

I think one could be both pro second amendment and be willing to support guardrails. 
 

After all it says well regulated militia. One can support guns and regulations.

We also have regulations on the operation of automobiles without banning them.

Prove me wrong 

[Dan Gilmore]

Following up on that thought, the people most vocally claiming support for A2 always leave out the well regulated part. They don’t support the amendment, they want to edit out the part that they don’t like. And yet want to claim to be true Americans.

[chasfh]

3 hours ago, oblong said:

Sandy Hook was a pivotal moment for me when it comes to political leanings.  When the GOP came out and was like "no... we're not having any discussions" I knew then they were crazy people.  If the knowledge of toddlers being nearly sawed in half with a gun doesn't move a person to start having a conversation on what can be done then there is no point.  Obviously something is missing from their soul.   I wanted away from those people and they've shown since they are as crazy as I thought.

Wow, what a solid insightful thing to say about people who make a huge show of cloaking themselves with the fig leaf of religion. (h/t gehringer2)

Jesus said to his disciples: “Take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them;
otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father.

When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others.

Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.

But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.

“When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them.

Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.

But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.

[chasfh]

3 hours ago, pfife said:

I agree that you believe that

It was everything second amendment absolutists have been saying for the better part of a century.

That hoary old chestnut he used is wrong. It's actually accurate when it's expressed, "Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people."

Most people without guns wouldn't simply change their method of murder, like stabbing or strangling or beating with a blunt object, because these methods can be overcome in the moment. A victim can't stop a bullet and then kill the shooter with it. But they could do that with a knife or a club and a piece of wire. It's why there are mass shootings and not mass clubbing or mass strangulations. People use guns for the certainty.

 

[pfife]

3 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Since at least on major reason for it's existence was to protect slavers from slaves, you wouldn't expect that set of motivations to produce a positive legacy.

Good lord i didnt know that, that amendment can go straight to hell

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, pfife said:

Good lord i didnt know that, that amendment can go straight to hell

How much it was driven by that gets a lot of debate, but no question southern landowners knew all too well they needed armed 'militias' to deal with the potential threat of 'domestic unrest'

[oblong]

I don't believe it was every about "tyranny".  If it were...well.... we are getting some of it now and those good ol' boys are pretty damn quiet.  Or scared.

 

[romad1]

You guys know the Northern Militias were also very important in putting down those goobers who rebelled?  

There is a reason Poland is implementing shooting education across their country, they are threatened by Russia.  

Regulate.  Have red flag laws.  And for damn sure educate. 

[CMRivdogs]

 

[chasfh]

12 hours ago, oblong said:

I don't believe it was every about "tyranny".  If it were...well.... we are getting some of it now and those good ol' boys are pretty damn quiet.  Or scared.

 

Or thrilled and awaiting their deputization into the Trump Militia.

[Archie]

On 9/29/2025 at 2:27 PM, Motown Bombers said:

Canada has expansive wilderness and hunting and people own guns. They just don’t own handguns and automatic weapons and their homicide rate is significantly lower. 

Who in the US owns automatic firearms?  They are very rare to be owned by normal citizens, take a long time to get approval to buy one - usually a couple years, and very expensive to purchase.  Last one I heard of for sale was $22,000.  

[CMRivdogs]

24 minutes ago, Archie said:

Who in the US owns automatic firearms?  They are very rare to be owned by normal citizens, take a long time to get approval to buy one - usually a couple years, and very expensive to purchase.  Last one I heard of for sale was $22,000.  

So you're saying that restrictions on "automatic weapons" worked. And only rich people can afford them.

Great let's put similar restricts on semi automatic weapons or magazine size. That should reduce crime even more

[Archie]

20 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

So you're saying that restrictions on "automatic weapons" worked. And only rich people can afford them.

Great let's put similar restricts on semi automatic weapons or magazine size. That should reduce crime even more

That would increase crime because criminals wouldn't have to worry about the law abiding firearm owner defending themselves. Besides the criminals don't follow laws and would still have guns.

[gehringer_2]

5 minutes ago, Archie said:

That would increase crime because criminals wouldn't have to worry about the law abiding firearm owner defending themselves. Besides the criminals don't follow laws and would still have guns.

it would be harder for criminals to get as many guns if they couldn't steal so many from an over armed population.

Edited September 30 by gehringer_2