I like guns despite their obvious flaws

Post Reply New Topic

It doesn't matter if they are daily. If you can't find and effectively remedy the root cause then it's going to continue.
I'd ask for a source of your numbers but I doubt it would be a trusted source outside of anti-gun......oops....I meant "safety" circles.....

Do you honestly not see the difference between offering firearms education in schools vs mandating it for adults?

Also, if you actually look at the numbers for states that require education or training to issue a CCW permit vs those that don't, you'll notice that their is no correlation with gun crime or accidents either way.

You are staged on transport and delivered to an area where you face angry violent people dedicated to the destruction of the United States, which you've taken a solemn oath to defend, AND gone through heavy indoctrination............they fired on children at Kent State, didn't they?

I'd like to believe differently but from the Civil War to the present this is what we have experienced. Very sad.

The NRA believes the earlier a child is taught the proper use and safe handling of firearms the better, and makes an effort to create and maintain programs toward child and hunter safety. This could be taught in schools.

The NRA believes the earlier a child is taught the proper use and safe handling of firearms the better, and makes an effort to create and maintain programs toward child and hunter safety. This could be taught in schools.

I do see a difference. One is a requirement for everyone and one is a requirement only for adult gun owners. I have always been an avid supporter of firearm education.

I just find it amusing that a program requiring more people to receive this training is acceptable while a proposal for less people to receive it leads to accusations of an anti-gun far left gun grabber.

The 1.3/week is a widely published recent data analysis, but is subject to the skewed views of the gun control group conducting it. It is 100% accurate for their definition of school shooting. If you use FBI statistics excluding the overly broad definition (which are public information) for the same time period, then you get 1/6 weeks.

Wasn't really making any argument with that, just providing information.

yet they will wait 30 secs in combat to identify a kid vs adult with a gun. the army and marines aren't yet trained to shoot kids. the military of the past is in the past. now there is so much media and the internet, you can't control what the troops learn or see. there's military personal involved in political stuff when not on duty. lots are in prepper groups. marines do seem to be more better at following the law then the army though. but marines swear oath to the constitution and I believe the army does it to the president.

its really not the same as it was in Vietnam and the past. though there does seem to be a effort to rid the military of those people who are loyal to law and morals rather then orders from top. the marines are being moved toward looking nice rather then being a veteran fighting force, or so says my friends.

My way will eventually net just about anyone that will be receiving public school and some private school education.
Rationale (a word that seems to evade you): Not all that will come in contact with guns will do so intentionally but at least they will t know the basics of gun safety and will probably be able to figure out how to determine whether or not a gun is loaded, how to unload it in most cases, and generally handle them safely. As a bonus, it gives would be future gun owners safety training. There is no invasive database of gun owners with potential to be abused since the training becomes part of standard K-12 curriculum to be taught to all students annually.

Your way has the typical invasive and punitive overtones associated with the classic gun grabber mindset by only targeting gun owners to receive mandatory training, stricter restrictions on more "dangerous"weapons, a national registry, and manufacturer liability beyond standard product liability.

Now somehow turn it around and accuse me of hyperbole, incivility, trolling, and thinly veiled hate speech. I notice you haven't thrown Godwin's Law in there yet. Have you simply forgotten to or have you just come to the conclusion in advance that I'd take being called a Nazi by you to be a compliment?

Probably the same recently published "data" that says gun ownership is down and all that gun buying in the past 5 years has just been the typical run of the mill gun fetishist and black helicopter theorist.


Mmm hmmm........

Considering you never provide any concrete rationale, I find these accusations baseless.



As opposed to absolutely everyone receiving mandatory training? That is somehow less invasive?



As opposed to having no regulations on any type of weapon at all?



My opinions on this matter have been thoroughly explained to you, and have been thoroughly misinterpreted.



This is more a matter of my belief in business regulation more than firearms specifically.



I have never called you a Nazi (although I have been called one on the subject of firearms on this site). Since I only made mention of one tiny aspect of firearm regulation in this thread before you jumped all over me, what do expect me to assume? You have once again flown off the handle about what you assume I am going to say and that I am against everything you have or ever will say. Perhaps you are not trolling, but it does come off that way sometimes. Now why don't you reply and talk about how causing someone "butt-hurt" is a high point in your day?

Again, it is accurate data, just presentedx in a skewed manner. The actual number of gun owners is down from a decade ago, but the number of actual firearms has gone way up. I personally think it is because the NRA has done a bang up job of scaring gun owners that gun control is coming and they better get the guns while they can more than I think it is fetishists or black helicopter folks (although there are enough of those out there to get some people's attention).



Since all I had done was provide two sets of numbers from two different sources with nothing else to accompany them . . .

It was more of a response to the person who had said that they happen pnce a week and your skeptical reply. Just ppointing out that it is technically true, but only for a very specific definition of "school shooting" to include suicide, accidental shootings, and shootings that happened on school property as result of independent crime.

But you just go ahead and make your wildly narrow minded black and white assumptions. If you want to play this game again, I have the time.

how is the number of gun owners found out?
isn't most these numbers a year or two behind usually so the increase in gun owners from 2013 wouldn't be accounted for.

loads and loads of new to gun people happen in 2013. people who had no interst in owning a gun until they thought they wouldn't be able to. then add those who bought them thinking they could turn a profit.

a person who walks in and knows nothing about guns isn't a gun owner buying more guns unless they are lying ofr some stupid reason. I know lot of new gun owners even those who are left leaning and thought they had to regisiter the gun or take some test to own them lol. I know one or two people who bought more cause of the scare. there is also a lot of gun owners who bought stuff they would have bought anyways that year.

fact is if some person calls people and asks if they own guns, most people will say no even if they do. that is just creepy and invasion of privacy. I'd probably just hang up on them

The onus is on you to rationalise the laws you want since that would be a change and one that appears to be wholly unneeded.


Already sufficiently explained.


Why not just stop tap dancing around it and say "assault weapon" like the rest of you kind does. It's free and it won't hurt, it'll just look woefully uninformed to the informed but we're used to it.


Yeah, you want a Canadian style national registry that was eventually shot down in Canada when it was discovered to be unworkable, burdensome, and expensive.
Whatever, registration is still registration and is by definition anti-gun.


Product liability already exists. Any more than that and you want the manufactured to be held liable for misuse, hence putting many or most gun manufacturers out of business.


Like I said, you haven't called me one yet but I'm sure it's coming. I just don't care one way or the other.


Your track record of having a rabidly anti-gun stance under the guise of a safety concern. It was someone else who labeled you as a concern troll, not I, though I can see how they may have arrived at that conclusion after reading pages and pages or your posts on the subject in several threads.


Ah yes, the classic "Look everyone! He's flying off the handle! He's out of control! Someone must do something to stop this mentally ill person before he hurts himself or someone!!" attempt to discredit someone. It's not very original.

Yes, I do offer an opposing opinion with equal saltiness that the opposition whose saltiness you are selectively blind to.
I actually start comparatively very few threads.
I contain my "saltines" to PPR and to a lesser degree the N&CE forum.


you mean dark humor, mirth, quippishness, youthful exuberance, etc....
Really, if you're that sensitive there are other forums here that are much safer for you.....

Here are the current numbers:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/15/the-demographics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/

In the 70s it was around 50% of households and has been in a slow decline ever since. I think the decline comes with the fact that fewer of the younger generations feel a need to own a gun.

The current demographics show that the most likely to own a gun is (big surprise here): older white southern/midwest rural male.

Some more collected data on the issue:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/24/5-facts-about-the-nra-and-guns-in-america/

I do find it amusing that the primary reason for owning a firearm has shifted to protection, even as over the same period violent crime rates have continued to drop. Something I attribute to the fairly effective fear campaigns that have become the center of the gun debate (and both extremes are guilty of this one).

One thing to remember about statistics, though, is that for every set of numbers you have for your argument that only looks at one subset of data, your opponent likely has one using the same type of information and both may be accurate. You also have to consider that most statistics are a subset of a much larger data set, with carefully chosen starting and ending points as well as carefully chosen definitions and criteria. When it comes to firearms, the studies and analyses of data tend to be much more flagrant about outright distortion than on any other issue. Which is why I posted earlier about school shootings. There is a big difference between 1.3/1 and 1/6, yet both are technically true.

For example: Chicago: several years after their handgun ban went into effect, the violent crime rates involving a firearm went up. But only for a few years and only started going up after a few years. It then went down and is currently (as of 2012 anyway) 17% lower than before the ban went into effect. Both can be correlated fairly well to national crime rates, where the brief spike in Chicago matched a brief spike nation-wide (although slightly behind the national in both rise and fall).
Or you could use the same measures for Texas after passing their "shall issue" CCW. Crime rates fell afterwards, but if you take the rates from a few years before it shows that the rates were already dropping at the same rate before it went into effect.
Or consider the accurate data that shows states with the most restrictive gun laws have the lowest rates of firearm related deaths, which fail to take into account that the firearm related deaths correlates much closer to the firearms per capita than the fairly loose correlation to the laws on the books (and also includes accidental shootings and suicides in with their numbers).

Since there are already a bunch of laws on the books, the onus is on you to rationalize removing said laws.



So is there no upper limit to the type of weapon that should be subject to regulation? Are there no people who should be subject to limitations in the right to bear arms?



Product liability is far from the only type of regulation on businesses producing potentially dangerous goods. There are companies that elute radioactive pharmaceuticals for nuclear medicine which are subject to regulation by a dozen different government agencies (as they should be). They are benificial products with the potential to do great harm if used incorrectly by the wrong people. The are rules and regulations placed on the manufacturers and distributors of poisons and chemicals, dangerous animals, long bladed weapons, fireworks and explosives, x-ray equipment, prescription drugs, crossbows, alcohol and tobacco. Why should firearms manufacturers and distributors be somehow immune?



I own firearms, support firearm education for gun owners (and I am not opposed to teaching safety in schools, btw), think gun grabbing conspiracies are not only far-fetched but absurdly paranoid, find the NRA to show some serious extremist tendencies, and I a proponent of firearm safety regulations passed by knowledgable people (with the removal/revision of those passed by the ill informed who know nothing).

But since I don't think a 7 year old should be able to spend his milk money on a 9mm or that a person shouldn't be allowed to sell a dozen AR-15s to some random dude at a gun show I guess I am a rabid anti-gun nut in your book.



As opposed to your "Look everyone! He's flying off the handle! He's out of control! Someone must do something to stop this mentally ill person before he steals everyone's guns!!" attempt to discredit me?



So?



And?



I was quantifying the reasons you appear to be intentionally abrasive to me. You frequently brag about upsetting people, which is what gives me that particular perception of you. And if you are so upset by my viewpoints, perhaps it is you who should head elsewhere.