grinningcat
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,663
Jun 26, 2014 13:06:35 GMT
|
Post by grinningcat on Jul 25, 2015 12:46:14 GMT
Why should owning a gun be a right? Hasn't time changed so much that it's time to change this "right"? I don't really understand why it's a right, but I wonder if the time has come to amend this right and begin to change the attitude that everyone has a right to a gun rather than it being a privilege.
|
|
happymomma
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
Aug 6, 2014 23:57:56 GMT
|
Post by happymomma on Jul 25, 2015 13:09:56 GMT
Why should owning a gun be a right? Hasn't time changed so much that it's time to change this "right"? I don't really understand why it's a right, but I wonder if the time has come to amend this right and begin to change the attitude that everyone has a right to a gun rather than it being a privilege. Really? Along those lines...maybe we should do away with the right to free speech as well. I mean look how many people say things that really upset others, even drive crime! People speak out against the government too! Better to shut them up so we don't have so many arguments. The fourth amendment too! Hey, maybe the law should just be able to come in and search your house whenever they want! Some people have dangerous things in there, so let's make it easier to check it out. Hey, if you have nothing to hide, you won't mind the law dropping by and searching your home whenever they want, right? I could go on, of course. But here is another BIG why. My husband is a Veteran. He and billions of other men have served our country to protect our freedoms. Many have given their body parts, their mental well being and even their lives to protect those freedoms. I almost hate to say this, but if you don't like the freedoms we have, think about living in another country that doesn't have them. Our country isn't perfect, but it is the home of the free. Oh, and again, take away that right and guess what? There will still be people with guns. The bad guys. And they'll have a free for all! The only ones to protect you from one of them will be the police. I'm not willing to put my life in the hands of a 20 minute response time.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 25, 2015 13:19:26 GMT
Why should owning a gun be a right? Hasn't time changed so much that it's time to change this "right"? I don't really understand why it's a right, but I wonder if the time has come to amend this right and begin to change the attitude that everyone has a right to a gun rather than it being a privilege. I've never heard a reasonable, relevant explanation for WHY it has to be a right. Generally the narrative is that it is a right, and you'll pry the gun from my cold, dead hands, blah blah blah. The people who view the 2nd amendment as some kind of sacred right generally also hold the founders of our country in a weird, God-like regard, as if they were superhuman people who could see hundreds of years into the future and predict exactly what the country and its people would need. They refuse to acknowledge that times change, and that our country has evolved from a wild frontier only recently won from the control of the English to a modern, mostly urban, industrialized society with strong standing military protection. The way I see it, our founders were great guys for their times, and I think the idea of a bill of rights is important, but that a rational society recognizes that what was necessary 200+ years ago is not necessarily in the best interest of the country today. Some things may have to be re-visited to see if they still make sense. I think it's laughable that people here think that John Adams or Thomas Jefferson would say, "Yeah, you all can stop thinking now - we've thought of everything for you." The thing that our founders left out of the constitution, in my opinion, was some kind of list of responsibilities. The way our constitution is written has created a culture of me, me, me without any regard for the responsibility we bear to ourselves and our fellow citizens. The mantra that it's MY right needs to be tempered by the acknowledgement that it's MY responsibility to consider others besides myself. I believe the socially responsible thing to do is to get rid of guns. I think their manufacture and sale in the US should cease immediately. You may have the right to own one, but we don't need to make it easy for you to get one. I think that if you still choose to have one in your home, and keep it in such a way that it can be easily stolen (i.e., on your bedside table, in your car, or really anywhere besides a stationary, locked biometric safe), and it is stolen and used in the commission of a crime, you should be held accountable. I believe if there is a gun "accident" in your home, or if you choose to open fire to "protect" someone in a public place and innocent bystanders are killed or injured, you should be charged with a crime. I think the narrative around guns in our country needs to change from protecting the rights of people who choose to own guns, to emphasizing the great risk and responsibility they take on if they choose to do so, and the great risk with which they're choosing to burden the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 25, 2015 13:23:29 GMT
Oh, and again, take away that right and guess what? There will still be people with guns. The bad guys. And they'll have a free for all! The only ones to protect you from one of them will be the police. I'm not willing to put my life in the hands of a 20 minute response time. The "free-for-all" you mention has completely failed to happen in other countries with strict gun control laws. Next argument.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 25, 2015 14:23:20 GMT
Oh, and again, take away that right and guess what? There will still be people with guns. The bad guys. And they'll have a free for all! The only ones to protect you from one of them will be the police. I'm not willing to put my life in the hands of a 20 minute response time. The "free-for-all" you mention has completely failed to happen in other countries with strict gun control laws. Next argument. They're already having a free-for-all in D.C. and Chicago. Strictest gun laws and more murders than anywhere else. Stricter gun laws are not working in THIS country.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 25, 2015 14:25:32 GMT
The "free-for-all" you mention has completely failed to happen in other countries with strict gun control laws. Next argument. They're already having a free-for-all in D.C. and Chicago. Strictest gun laws and more murders than anywhere else. Stricter gun laws are not working in THIS country.Again - Chicago and D.C. are small islands in a larger country where anyone can walk into a pawn shop or sporting goods store and buy a handgun. These are not examples of real gun control.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 30, 2024 12:54:10 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 14:44:43 GMT
@dottyscrapper, you left out a some very important words from your phrase: "But owning a gun that injures or kills someone else isn't either." It should be 'owning a gun that is capable of injure[ing] or kill[ing] someone' ...just like owning a car that is capable of injuring or killing someone... A GUN IS NOT INHERENTLY, IN AND OF ITSELF, AN INSTRUMENT SOLELY OF DEATH OR INJURY. No more than a CAR is an instrument solely of death or injury. A small distinction, but an important one. So, what you said is not factual. (And yes, I know some people don't think there's any reason for anyone else to have a gun other than we must all want to blow someone's head off if they look at us wrong. But that isn't true.) eta: Then perhaps we need to table the specifics of guns and just ask ourselves why crime is so much worse here in general. ^^^ this is the tough one, and I'm afraid there isn't an easy answer. Look at all the threads about welfare, education, low-wage jobs, etc. I think the answer is how different socio-economic conditions are in some of the other countries as opposed to the US-- don't we rank down there with third-world countries in terms of our educational standards and things such as paid maternity leave, vacation, availability of health care, etc.?? While there are a lot of great things about this country, there's a lot of not-so-great things, too, and they never seem to get addressed to move us forward as a society. A gun is intended to kill or maim, that's what it is designed to do regardless of whether that's for hunting food, sport or whatever. It doesn't have any other use. A car is designed for transportation and while it can also cause death or injury during an accident/by drunk driver, that isn't it's primary purpose - that is a misuse of the car. A gun is designed to blow a hole in whatever it's pointed and fired at. It discharges a bullet with massive force and to do massive damage on impact. A gun doesn't accidentally kill someone while it was being used to do anything else because you don't use a gun for anything else. All sorts of everyday objects could accidentally or inadvertently or by misuse cause death but a gun has no other use other than to destroy/kill. The bottom line seems to be constitutional rights. Many people aren't prepared to see them altered/adapted in any way, shape or form. IMO that is a fundamental difference between the USA and say, Australia. They were prepared to change things dramatically.
I totally support requiring background checks and waiting times in order to buy a gun. I totally support a ban that would keep Joe Public from buying an automatic assault rifle that has bullets that can penetrate a tank. I think MANY people in the USA support similar gun control laws. (so I completely disagree with your opinion that "many people don't want them altered or adapted in any way, shape of form")
I looked at and read Australia's Constitution. It's lovely and all, but it is not what ours is. So either the founding fathers of Australia trusted the government a lot more, or didn't have the foresight to consider that her people may need protection from an overreaching government. The USA forefathers looked at the Constitution alone and enough of them thought that there was no protection of individual liberties and then created our Bill of Rights. Australia has NOTHING like our Bill of Rights. Australians were never ever granted the individual liberties that Americans were. The Australian government has been free to change laws dramatically.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 30, 2024 12:54:10 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 14:46:52 GMT
Why should owning a gun be a right? Hasn't time changed so much that it's time to change this "right"? I don't really understand why it's a right, but I wonder if the time has come to amend this right and begin to change the attitude that everyone has a right to a gun rather than it being a privilege. I think you should be very careful in changing what rights we're entitled to. Are you going to be as equally on board when it's a right that you happen to enjoy and appreciate?
Maybe a man will decide that women should no longer have the right to vote. That'd be cool with you?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 30, 2024 12:54:10 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 14:48:54 GMT
They're already having a free-for-all in D.C. and Chicago. Strictest gun laws and more murders than anywhere else. Stricter gun laws are not working in THIS country. Again - Chicago and D.C. are small islands in a larger country where anyone can walk into a pawn shop or sporting goods store and buy a handgun. These are not examples of real gun control. Oh I forgot...we're not "allowed" to bring up Chicago gun control laws being an utter and complete failure and the strictest laws in the nation having zero impact.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 25, 2015 14:49:50 GMT
Why should owning a gun be a right? Hasn't time changed so much that it's time to change this "right"? I don't really understand why it's a right, but I wonder if the time has come to amend this right and begin to change the attitude that everyone has a right to a gun rather than it being a privilege. I think you should be very careful in changing what rights we're entitled to. Of course we should be careful. Any change to the constitution should be very carefully considered. That does not mean that we should never consider changing it. The rest of it is a straw man argument. No one is proposing changing voting rights or anything of the kind. I would like to think that we could be a thoughtful society that could carefully consider the need for and usefulness of one right in modern times without throwing the rest of them out.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 25, 2015 14:51:53 GMT
Again - Chicago and D.C. are small islands in a larger country where anyone can walk into a pawn shop or sporting goods store and buy a handgun. These are not examples of real gun control. Oh I forgot...we're not "allowed" to bring up Chicago gun control laws being an utter and complete failure and the strictest laws in the nation having zero impact. You can bring up whatever you like. Gun control is just not actually gun control when there is free, unrestricted movement of people and goods between the controlled area and the non-controlled area, so it's not a valid argument.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 30, 2024 12:54:10 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 14:58:49 GMT
Freedom of assembly is a constitutional right and yet people still have to get permits to picket or have parades. How would gun insurance be any different? I've never filed a permit for a march, rally, or parade but I think it would be so that city officials have advanced notice and can either close off streets to protect you, or to have an additional police presence there to protect you. It's a permit. A heads up. Keep in mind, to legally purchase a gun you need a gun permit as well. So gun owners are paying the same nominal fee to obtain a permit to buy the gun in the first place.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 30, 2024 12:54:10 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 15:01:00 GMT
Oh I forgot...we're not "allowed" to bring up Chicago gun control laws being an utter and complete failure and the strictest laws in the nation having zero impact. You can bring up whatever you like. Gun control is just not actually gun control when there is free, unrestricted movement of people and goods between the controlled area and the non-controlled area, so it's not a valid argument. So clearly, the non-controlled areas near Chicago are a problem. So how are all of these strict laws aimed at Chicago going? The answer is...they're not because there are too many non-controlled areas. So how is adding even stricter laws going to have an impact? Until you have uniform laws across the nation, you're going to run into.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 25, 2015 15:02:30 GMT
You can bring up whatever you like. Gun control is just not actually gun control when there is free, unrestricted movement of people and goods between the controlled area and the non-controlled area, so it's not a valid argument. So clearly, the non-controlled areas near Chicago are a problem. So how are all of these strict laws aimed at Chicago going? The answer is...they're not because there are too many non-controlled areas. So how is adding even stricter laws going to have an impact? Until you have uniform laws across the nation, you're going to run into. Um ... exactly. Gun control needs to be national, not just local. Glad we agree! ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/MNrJDkDuSwqIMVw33MdD.jpg)
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 25, 2015 15:06:01 GMT
They're already having a free-for-all in D.C. and Chicago. Strictest gun laws and more murders than anywhere else. Stricter gun laws are not working in THIS country. Again - Chicago and D.C. are small islands in a larger country where anyone can walk into a pawn shop or sporting goods store and buy a handgun. These are not examples of real gun control. These are examples of gun control NOT WORKING. Criminals will always have guns, and as you can see they don't care about stricter gun laws. You'll never have "real" gun control if it means disarming the public who have a right to defend themselves. It's just not going to happen. You'll play hell trying to get this country to go defenseless. Defenseless. It's insanity.
de·fense·less dəˈfensləs/ adjective adjective: defenceless; adjective: defenseless
without defense or protection; totally vulnerable. "attacks on defenseless civilians" synonyms: vulnerable, helpless, powerless, impotent, weak, susceptible
Do these descriptors sound like our country? No way am I volunteering to be TOTALLY VULNERABLE. It's madness. Only a dolt would suggest taking the examples of D.C. and Chicago and say "Let's spread this example all over the country! If we did that all our problems would be solved!"
In short, you aren't going to get what you want by disarming the law-abiding public. You need to take on the problem, the criminals. THEY are the problem. Change them and what they are doing. It's silly to have more laws that have to be followed by those who AREN'T the problem. A crime occurred? Well, let's pass a law, then. You know, because so many criminals follow laws. <eyeroll> It's crazy.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 25, 2015 15:18:14 GMT
Again - Chicago and D.C. are small islands in a larger country where anyone can walk into a pawn shop or sporting goods store and buy a handgun. These are not examples of real gun control. These are examples of gun control NOT WORKING. Criminals will always have guns, and as you can see they don't care about stricter gun laws. You'll never have "real" gun control if it means disarming the public who have a right to defend themselves. It's just not going to happen. You'll play hell trying to get this country to go defenseless. Defenseless. It's insanity. de·fense·less dəˈfensləs/ adjective adjective: defenceless; adjective: defenseless
without defense or protection; totally vulnerable. "attacks on defenseless civilians" synonyms: vulnerable, helpless, powerless, impotent, weak, susceptible Do these descriptors sound like our country? No way am I volunteering to be TOTALLY VULNERABLE. It's madness. Only a dolt would suggest taking the examples of D.C. and Chicago and say "Let's spread this example all over the country! If we did that all our problems would be solved!"
In short, you aren't going to get what you want by disarming the law-abiding public. You need to take on the problem, the criminals. THEY are the problem. Change them and what they are doing. It's silly to have more laws that have to be followed by those who AREN'T the problem. A crime occurred? Well, let's pass a law, then. You know, because so many criminals follow laws. <eyeroll> It's crazy.So then, according to your logic, we should do away with all laws. Criminals aren't going to follow them anyway! ![:rolleyes:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/Ui47LhQw2NqWVWNNqtfM.jpg) You don't seem able to understand that the reason gun control isn't working in the isolated cities you mention is because they are isolated areas of control. It's very easy for the average Joe to buy a gun in the suburbs and bring it into the city. But if guns are not available for legal purchase anywhere in the country, it becomes much harder to get one. Moving across national borders takes more time and effort. There are checkpoints and searches. It's not a perfect solution, obviously, but it would drastically reduce the availability of guns to people intent on shooting up a movie theater. A national buy-back system like Australia instituted would also reduce the number of guns available for criminals to steal and use to commit further crimes. Yes, Australia is smaller, but if what you say is true, then we should see a proportional number of gun crimes still happening in Australia, the UK, etc. But we just don't see that.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 30, 2024 12:54:10 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 15:27:12 GMT
So clearly, the non-controlled areas near Chicago are a problem. So how are all of these strict laws aimed at Chicago going? The answer is...they're not because there are too many non-controlled areas. So how is adding even stricter laws going to have an impact? Until you have uniform laws across the nation, you're going to run into. Um ... exactly. Gun control needs to be national, not just local. Glad we agree! ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/MNrJDkDuSwqIMVw33MdD.jpg) But there's a HUGE difference in what I call "gun control on a national level" which includes background checks, mandatory waiting times, no tank piercing ammunition, no automatic rifles and what you posted to Rainbow in banning the sale of all guns nationwide.
We will never agree on what constitutes "gun control on a national level" as long as you think that banning of all guns is an option.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 25, 2015 15:35:52 GMT
Um ... exactly. Gun control needs to be national, not just local. Glad we agree! ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/MNrJDkDuSwqIMVw33MdD.jpg) But there's a HUGE difference in what I call "gun control on a national level" which includes background checks, mandatory waiting times, no tank piercing ammunition, no automatic rifles and what you posted to Rainbow in banning the sale of all guns nationwide.
We will never agree on what constitutes "gun control on a national level" as long as you think that banning of all guns is an option. And we will never stop the disastrous rate of mass shootings in this country as long as you think that continuing to freely sell guns to all and sundry in pawn shops and sporting goods stores is an option. A background check doesn't screen for mental illness, and a waiting period doesn't dissuade a guy who has decided he wants to go out in a blaze of glory and take as many down people with him as he can. And he doesn't need tank piercing ammunition or an automatic rifle (already illegal) to do it - he just needs a handgun he can easily and legally buy in his own town. Background checks and waiting periods also don't do anything to prevent people from just taking a few guns from their family armory to shoot up the local school. What I actually proposed up at the top of this page was not an outright ban on ownership. I think we can ban manufacture and sales, and enact laws to hold gun owners very responsible for any wrongdoing or "accident" committed with a gun they own, including if it was stolen because they didn't properly secure it. I think we can also institute a voluntary buy-back to get a lot of guns out of homes and off the streets. I think we should absolutely disallow open carry because it confuses the line between someone with malicious intent and someone without it, both for the public and the police. Let's make the responsibility of gun ownership as weighty as it really should be, and make the benefits of disarming attractive enough to convince a lot of people it's just not worth it to them to keep a gun.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 30, 2024 12:54:10 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 15:48:05 GMT
But there's a HUGE difference in what I call "gun control on a national level" which includes background checks, mandatory waiting times, no tank piercing ammunition, no automatic rifles and what you posted to Rainbow in banning the sale of all guns nationwide.
We will never agree on what constitutes "gun control on a national level" as long as you think that banning of all guns is an option. And we will never stop the disastrous rate of mass shootings in this country as long as you think that continuing to freely sell guns to all and sundry in pawn shops and sporting goods stores is an option. A background check doesn't screen for mental illness, and a waiting period doesn't dissuade a guy who has decided he wants to go out in a blaze of glory and take as many down people with him as he can. And he doesn't need tank piercing ammunition or an automatic rifle (already illegal) to do it - he just needs a handgun he can easily and legally buy in his own town. Background checks and waiting periods also don't do anything to prevent people from just taking a few guns from their family armory to shoot up the local school. I would assume that enacting my "gun control" measures nationwide would indeed have an impact on Chicago gun violence.
Had I known that our definitions of "gun control" was so different, I probably would not have bothered with the serious dialogue because you're not interested in anything but a complete ban. I'm no "gun nut" since I've never even touched a gun, but the thought of only the bad guys having guns...and them KNOWING it...that seems to me to not be a great idea.
National gun control measures would certainly help. It may not eliminate the entire threat (crazy guy in a movie theatre) but I'll bet the people trapped in the inner cities including Chicago would be thankful for any improvement in their lives in the war zones where kids are unable to play outside without fear of being gunned down.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 25, 2015 15:51:08 GMT
Did you actually read what I wrote? I didn't say anything about a complete ban on ownership.
And pssst, fewer legal guns available for theft also means fewer guns endangering people in the inner city.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 25, 2015 15:54:23 GMT
NOT EVER GONNA HAPPEN. Do you not understand that we have a RIGHT to defend ourselves? Do you not understand what happens when people cannot defend themselves? I am SO thankful for a STRONG NRA to combat this craziness.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 25, 2015 15:57:55 GMT
NOT EVER GONNA HAPPEN. Do you not understand that we have a RIGHT to defend ourselves? Do you not understand what happens when people cannot defend themselves? Yes, it's really terrible what's happened in Australia and the UK. Just awful. All those people not being killed by guns. I don't know how they live with it.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 25, 2015 16:02:59 GMT
NOT EVER GONNA HAPPEN. Do you not understand that we have a RIGHT to defend ourselves? Do you not understand what happens when people cannot defend themselves? Yes, it's really terrible what's happened in Australia and the UK. Just awful. All those people not being killed by guns. I don't know how they live with it. Feel free to go there. You aren't going to take away 2A here. Nope. Not gonna happen.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 25, 2015 16:07:39 GMT
Yes, it's really terrible what's happened in Australia and the UK. Just awful. All those people not being killed by guns. I don't know how they live with it. Feel free to go there. You aren't going to take away 2A here. Nope. Not gonna happen.Because you and your guns are going to stop us?
|
|
|
Post by gar on Jul 25, 2015 16:10:39 GMT
NOT EVER GONNA HAPPEN. Do you not understand that we have a RIGHT to defend ourselves? Do you not understand what happens when people cannot defend themselves? Yes, it's really terrible what's happened in Australia and the UK. Just awful. All those people not being killed by guns. I don't know how they live with it. ![:nod:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/U60p50mxzUNFaJHP0XeB.jpg) It's tough I tell you! It's hard not worrying about being randomly shot at the mall, or the theatre or school....having to 'decide' not to live in fear rather than actually not living in fear. It's a nightmare knowing that even if my home is broken into, they won't be armed with a gun. And hardest of all is not thinking that I need to have a gun to defend myself from anyone and everyone else who might have a gun and might just not be a responsible gun owner. ETA - not proud on myself for sinking to the level of sarcasm but you know......I'll be leaving this thread now. It frustrates me no end, I can't imagine how it must feel to actually have to live this crap.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 30, 2024 12:54:10 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 16:17:06 GMT
Many men have given their lives to protect our country too, I'm not seeing the logic of that argument. How free do you truly think you are if you're too scared to live without a gun?
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jul 25, 2015 16:25:19 GMT
Feel free to go there. You aren't going to take away 2A here. Nope. Not gonna happen. Because you and your guns are going to stop us? You aren't doing anything, LOL.
|
|
katybee
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 5,403
Jun 25, 2014 23:25:39 GMT
|
Post by katybee on Jul 25, 2015 16:37:35 GMT
Why do I have to go to a special store to buy liquor, but I can go up to my local Walmart and buy a gun? Seriously.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 30, 2024 12:54:10 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 16:42:36 GMT
Where do you think illegal guns come from? I believe that illegal guns start out life as legal and in the course of their existence they become illegal. The question is how. Maybe a national data base will answer that question and cut down the number of illegal guns. My guess is a fair number of gun owners treat their guns like a pair of old shoes instead if the weapon that they are. Especially since I firmly believe a large percentage of folks only own guns because of what I call a "just in case" or "what if" mentality. And these folks will never face a threat that would require them to own a gun. But instead create a threat because they own a gun. I think your "guess" may be incorrect. Most people that I know who own guns (and I am willing to bet that I know more people who own guns than you do) keep them for quite a long time. They aren't discarded willy-nilly. Often an older gun is used as a trade in on a newer gun. People buy used guns from stores all the time. As my kid grows out of his gun, we upgrade him to a better or bigger one. When DH wants a new .357 he trades in his older one for a better model. When DH has sold or bought guns from to or from a private party it has always been someone he knows. You cannot post on ad on craigslist to sell a gun. Many newspapers do not run ads selling weapons. What leads you to your belief that a large percentage of folks own guns because of the what if mentality? We own guns because DH and now both DSs hunt. There is no what if there. DH bought a handgun to take to the shooting range. He doesn't have a CC permit and the gun stays locked in a gun safe at our house when not being used. It is not in our rifle/shotgun case, but is kept in a gun safe in our room which is locked. The gun is loaded. He didn't buy it for what if, but when one night someone came to our door late at night and we realized that with all the guns we had, none were loaded or accessible, we decided to keep this one upstairs. I keep getting accused of having privilege in the other thread, I wonder if there isn't some privilege of living in a suburban area that has quick police response time and enough officers to cover an area. Maybe there are some areas who have long response times. My area has one to two cops on duty at any time (except during our fall festival) and that officer can be anywhere in a large radius. He covers my town, the town near us, and all the rural surrounding areas. It could be 20-40 minutes before he is at my house if I dial 911 and I live mere blocks from the station. Do you know every gun owner in this country? Because if not then you don't know how everyone treats their guns. It's not meant to be a snarky comment just a fact. I think and I have read that illegal guns start out as legal guns and somehow and someway end up in the hands of criminals or gangs or crazies. So how is that happening? It is possible once we find out how this happens we can keep guns out of the hands of criminals etc. Maybe not all but some. To me that would be a good thing don't you agree? And I firmly believe that some gun owners DO treat their guns like an old pair of shoes. How else would you explain the deaths of children because some fool didn't properly secure a loaded gun? You putting yourself in the "just in case" or "what if" category. The people who I think fall in this category are people who don't hunt or don't need them for protection on the job or protection because they live in an area where they would need a gun for protection from critters. They are people who buy guns just because. They have no reason to have a gun but hey why not. They are also the group I feel are mostly responsible for legal guns becoming illegal guns. And "accidents" that result in the death of innocents. Guns are dangerous things and should never be purchased "just because." I do know we can't keep going on the way we are. It has to stop.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 30, 2024 12:54:10 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2015 16:43:51 GMT
Did you actually read what I wrote? I didn't say anything about a complete ban on ownership. And pssst, fewer legal guns available for theft also means fewer guns endangering people in the inner city. You said "I believe the socially responsible thing to do is to get rid of guns. I think their manufacture and sale in the US should cease immediately"
So you didn't say that you favor a BAN on ownership. You simply said a ban on the manufacture and sale.
Banning the manufacture and sale of legally purchasing a gun is simply going to prevent law-abiding citizens from purchasing a gun. The sale of guns will simply be forced underground, where it cannot be monitored or regulated in any way and there will STILL be criminals with guns. There will still be crazy people illegally buying guns from the gun runners underground and there will still be gun violence in Chicago and movie theatres being shot up.
|
|