Do you feel the need to be unarmed and defensless while camping?

[JWP58]

This is hyperbole or an oblique argument at best. There is nothing punitive about the application of regulations in the gun, or any other sector. We aren't being "punished" because we can't have brand new Defenders here. They just don't meet our goofy regulations.

And again, this conversation is deteriorating, as if often does, because one half of the debate keeps asserting that the end goal is a banning of guns, when that sentiment is almost never, ever expressed. The vast majority of those on the opposite side of the "pro-gun" advocacy are not "anti-gun," they are simply hoping to reduce violent gun usage across the board. Stemming the flood of guns and unregulated gun owners would be a good start.

The news today just reported that the shooters in San Bernadino bought guns second hand from an individual who bought them legally. We make it pretty easy for people to make the good guy to bad guy transition. Personally, I'd like to see that transition be a little more difficult to make, wouldn't you?

You stated "fewer guns in circulation should be an end goal". So basically you want to make them almost impossible to acquire...a slick way of getting rid of them without an out right ban.

Also, how in the world would you make a private party transaction "more difficult". One would think building pipe bombs were "more difficult" since they are illegal to manufacture or possess. A reasonable person would also think its "difficult" to murder 14 people in the name of allah...since that's illegal too. But hey Im a reasonable selfish gun owner.

Once again a perfect example of an anti firearm person wanting to take advantage of a situation in order to push their agenda of draconian gun control. Disgusting. No law banning private party gun sales would've stopped that from happening, and you know it. You just see an opportunity punish law abiding gun owners as a means to get "fewer guns in circulation".

Are you in favor of speed limits being set at a "safe" speed, to make high speed crashes "more difficult" to occur? Maybe 30mph is safe enough. Speed governors, background checks, fewer cars being manufactured (for safety and the environment) it is...

 

[bob280zx]

When political groups rush to make rash decisions, as they have in the past, and decide to enact certain universal bans on high-capacity magazines or "assault weapon" features, what will be their response when we have another mass shooting or several dozen young men get killed over a summer due to inner city crime

Well, if past experience is a guide, there are actually two responses:

Mass shooting - immediate wailing and gnashing of teeth from the top down calling for more "common sense" gun control

Inner city - crickets

 

[Lynnrb]

No actually I have to read your posts very carefully, usually a couple of times to understand what you are even talking about.

I have no clue what "make gun owning saver" means.

Carrying a gun introduces as much risk as not using sunscreen to the person carrying. My firearm has never gone off in its holster. I carry concealed when not at work, so nobody but me even knows I have a gun on my person. The only person that is at risk by me carrying a concealed weapon, is the criminal that I may or hopefully may not encounter while carrying. I hope I never have to use my weapon, but I sure do want it just in case I ever need it.

Hopefully you don't drive, to make your community safer

Are you saying there are no accidental gun deaths.

 

[JWP58]

Are you saying there are no accidental gun deaths.

No Im saying the person responsible for "accidental" (ie NEGLIGENT) gun deaths are responsible for their actions. Not me. Im not careless with my firearm, just as Im not careless with my pocket knife.

I know bleeding hearts wont understand that mindset. For those such people, I suggest listening to your fear, and steering clear of firearms, as you obviously don't possess the maturity to accept the responsibility of owning and operating firearms. But leave my rights alone.

 

[Dalko43]

This is hyperbole or an oblique argument at best. There is nothing punitive about the application of regulations in the gun, or any other sector. We aren't being "punished" because we can't have brand new Defenders here. They just don't meet our goofy regulations.

And again, this conversation is deteriorating, as if often does, because one half of the debate keeps asserting that the end goal is a banning of guns, when that sentiment is almost never, ever expressed. The vast majority of those on the opposite side of the "pro-gun" advocacy are not "anti-gun," they are simply hoping to reduce violent gun usage across the board. Stemming the flood of guns and unregulated gun owners would be a good start.

The news today just reported that the shooters in San Bernadino bought guns second hand from an individual who bought them legally. We make it pretty easy for people to make the good guy to bad guy transition. Personally, I'd like to see that transition be a little more difficult to make, wouldn't you?

Actually I do consider the inability to buy a brand new Defender to be punishment. I think if it drives and meets certain universal safety and emissions testing, it should be legal to own and buy in the USA. In fact, I am legally allowed to buy old Defenders from the 1980's and early 1990's, because they fall within a certain age bracket, but I can't buy a brand new Defender, despite it having better safety and a cleaner engine/exhaust setup. I've heard suggestions, and I'm inclined to agree, that these arbitrary restrictions are in place more to protect domestic brands and regional dealerships than they are to keep us "safe."

http://jalopnik.com/why-are-the-feds-obsessed-with-seizing-these-peoples-ol-1672381729

My car preferences aside, my argument is not hyperbole. The 2nd Amendment is a right, unlike car ownership. When a state or federal government tells a law-abiding citizen that he/she can't own a semi-auto rifle with certain features, as is the case in my state, that is a form of preemptive punishment. The government is mandating and controlling firearm access to the law-abiding citizen in an attempt to inhibit everyone's access, including criminals'.

I know you keep insisting that your end goal is not to restrict or ban all firearm types. I have a problem accepting that mentality, maybe not necessarily from you but rather others who have it, because gun control, even by your own admission, is a slippery slope. You yourself have noted that a major reason we gun owners should be open to additional restrictions is because we have already accepted other types of restriction in the past. When the precedent is set that government can regulate a person's 2nd amendment right, it makes it all the more easier for additional restriction and legislation to be put in place. You can go look at countries like UK and Australia, where despite their already stringent gun control, there are very vocal and concerted efforts by some advocacy groups to ban/restrict more firearm types and even prohibit hunting.

You may not be in favor of banning all firearms (though it sounds like deep down inside you would be okay with such a measure), but there are plenty of people who do want that, and will use these little victories (magazine restrictions, no "military features", arduous licensing processes) as stepping stones to get closer to that end goal. That's why I'm willing to support private sales background checks, some form of mental screening incorporated into the NCIS checks, and not much else....any additional restriction is simply a burden on the good guys and gals.

As for the San Bernardino shooters getting their firearms....their neighbor who provided them weapons is being charged appropriately. He broke the law since he performed what is known as a "straw purchase" whereby he bought firearms on behalf of other individuals.

http://abc7chicago.com/news/former-neighbor-of-san-bernardino-shooter-facing-terror-charges/1126787/

The law/regulation to address this issue is already in place. A person broke that law and is being punished accordingly. I'm not sure what other regulation we could've put in place to prevent that from happening.

 

[OCD Overland]

The only person that is at risk by me carrying a concealed weapon, is the criminal that I may or hopefully may not encounter while carrying. I hope I never have to use my weapon, but I sure do want it just in case I ever need it.

A couple of months ago there was a shooting here. Not far from my house, really. The shooter was a perfectly respectable older man, mid-fifties - a fireman. Someone in a mini-van pulled out in front of him and he got pissed. There were words exchanged, he got more pissed, and in the end, he got out of his car and shot the other driver. All in broad daylight, plenty of witnesses, and in front of the poor guy's family. I don't think he had the gun because he secretly wanted to go shoot someone over a minor traffic incident. He had it for the same reasons all gun owners do - it made him feel safer, and probably made him feel like a bigger man. Maybe he imagined himself being a hero one day, shooting the bad guy. But he was pissed, the gun was there, and the rest is history.

How often does that happen? I mean, people lose their cool. Good people lose their cool. People who would never, ever in a million years, imagine themselves shooting someone else end up doing just that, simply because they lost their cool. Gun owners will look at that incident and say 'well, he was different', 'he had a problem, but that's not me'.

Yeah, right.

I don't really have a dog in the gun/no gun fight. My personal take is that a gun would make me a bit safer, but the rest of the world a bit less safe. But I really hate it when gun owners try to use their own imagined infallibility as a defense for gun ownership. In fact, imo, anyone who does that likely lacks the self awareness needed to actually be a responsible gun owner.

 

[JWP58]

A couple of months ago there was a shooting here. Not far from my house, really. The shooter was a perfectly respectable older man, mid-fifties - a fireman. Someone in a mini-van cut pulled out in front of him and he got pissed. There were words exchanged, he got more pissed, and in the end, he got out of his car and shot the other driver. All in broad daylight, plenty of witnesses, and in front of the poor guy's family. I don't think he had the gun because he secretly wanted to go shoot someone over a minor traffic incident. He had it for the same reasons all gun owners do - it made him feel safer, and probably made him feel like a bigger man. Maybe he imagined himself being a hero one day, shooting the bad guy. But he was pissed, the gun was there, and the rest is history.

How often does that happen? I mean, people lose their cool. Good people lose their cool. People who would never, ever in a million years, imagine themselves shooting someone else end up doing just that, simply because they lost their cool.

I don't really have a dog in the gun/no gun fight. My personal take is that a gun would make me a bit safer, but the rest of the world a bit less safe. But I really hate it when gun owners try to use their own imagined infallibility as a defense for gun ownership.

And once again, that individual is responsible for his own criminal actions. As you may be aware, I (along with every other responsible gun owner) had nothing to do with it.

I don't carry a gun to feel like a bigger man. I carry a gun because there is evil in this world. Evil that I deal with on a daily basis. Have you ever been "out and about" and bumped into someone you took to jail the week prior? I have, and I like to be prepared for such encounters if they were to go really south. I carry a firearm to protect myself. End of story. Not for ego, not to brag, but because I understand I am responsible for my safety. I don't want to be a hero, I want to be alive. Im sorry if you took what I wrote as chest thumping, it wasn't.


Even Kurt Russell gets it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7hlG-CTnk8

 

[Dalko43]

A couple of months ago there was a shooting here. Not far from my house, really. The shooter was a perfectly respectable older man, mid-fifties - a fireman. Someone in a mini-van cut pulled out in front of him and he got pissed. There were words exchanged, he got more pissed, and in the end, he got out of his car and shot the other driver. All in broad daylight, plenty of witnesses, and in front of the poor guy's family. I don't think he had the gun because he secretly wanted to go shoot someone over a minor traffic incident. He had it for the same reasons all gun owners do - it made him feel safer, and probably made him feel like a bigger man. Maybe he imagined himself being a hero one day, shooting the bad guy. But he was pissed, the gun was there, and the rest is history.

How often does that happen? I mean, people lose their cool. Good people lose their cool. People who would never, ever in a million years, imagine themselves shooting someone else end up doing just that, simply because they lost their cool.

I don't really have a dog in the gun/no gun fight. My personal take is that a gun would make me a bit safer, but the rest of the world a bit less safe. But I really hate it when gun owners try to use their own imagined infallibility as a defense for gun ownership.

I think it's the other way around: you're transposing one man's insecurities or anger issues to the behavior and mindset of all other gun owners. There is nothing infallible about gun owners; they're people just like everyone else. But just because a few people can't behave responsibly while carrying, doesn't mean that every other gun owner is a ticking time bomb. Millions of gun owners go about their lives every day, and I assure you many of them run into confrontations, arguments, disagreements, but the overwhelming majority of them find a way to avoid violence or physical conflict.

Also it's that very notion, the infallibility of humans (or lack thereof), that is the primary reason that we have a 2nd Amendment to begin with. People are not infallible. Which means the institutions built and run by people (government, police, ect.) are not infallible either. I don't prep for the apocalypse. I'm not counting down the days where some fictitious civil conflict might break out. But I do know that the politicians, police, civil servants, ect. who are sworn to serve this country are imperfect people just like me. And while there are some civil services designed to safeguard my welfare, at the end of the day I'm the one most responsible for my own welfare and safety.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

The idea of PERSONAL responsibility is lost on so many people, but you know a few more laws will take care of it.

 

[calicamper]

Not true. Death rate in auto vs guns is the same.

And only one statistic has dropped while users increased 10 fold.

 

[calicamper]

The idea of PERSONAL responsibility is lost on so many people, but you know a few more laws will take care of it.

If common sense and personal responsibility had even half the effect on people doing the right thing we would shed thousands of laws from the books. Just doesnt work that way. Even tribal LAW set rules on who could hunt and for what to manage resources.

 

[JWP58]

If common sense and personal responsibility had even half the effect on people doing the right thing we would shed thousands of laws from the books. Just doesnt work that way. Even tribal LAW set rules on who could hunt and for what to manage resources.

I wonder if "tribal LAW" mandated what kind of weapons one could possess or use? "Spear, yes. Assault atlatl? NO" lol...

 

[Tazman]

Armed and trained

I always have a pistol on my side and a shotgun in my camper. An armed society is a polite society. I have a duty to protect my family and I take it very seriously. I would rather have a gun and not need it that the other way around. I am also an instructor, have a concealed Cary permit that works in 30 states, and I am very well trained.

 

[Christophe Noel]

You stated "fewer guns in circulation should be an end goal". So basically you want to make them almost impossible to acquire...a slick way of getting rid of them without an out right ban.

Once again a perfect example of an anti firearm person wanting to take advantage of a situation in order to push their agenda of draconian gun control. Disgusting.
.

JWP58, I'm sensing this discussion is about to get ugly, and I'll be seriously bummed if that happens. So far everyone has been very polite, intelligent, and not projecting any derision or disrespect. Let's keep it that way for the sake of the integrity of the discussion and keeping this thread open.

Now, it's hard for me to find new ways of saying it, but it is very possible for there to be a system in place that ensures that guns are sold to qualified buyers, as we do now, but with more effectiveness. That wouldn't preclude people like you from buying guns, and believe me when I say this, that is my strongest desire. To not have guns banned - ever. Nothing draconian or "disgusting" about my individual desires on the subject.

And again, a reduction in the number of guns in circulation, and doubled efforts to make sure they are in the right hands, can only be a good thing. The "more guns, less regulations," concept is not a sustainable, at least not in my opinion, or anything that can be substantiated statistically in our's or any other country.

Again, I would NEVER advocate for a ban on guns. I wouldn't even encourage those silly designations between "good" guns and "bad" guns. But, I think we can do more to reduce gun violence in this country. That's all. That's the end goal. Not banning guns. And as I said before, to meet that objective we have to do far, far more than just address gun control.

 

[Christophe Noel]

I am also an instructor, have a concealed Cary permit that works in 30 states, and I am very well trained.

And again, as someone who admits they hate guns - I think that is awesome and would never hope to see that scenario change. It's the guns in the wrong hands I hope someday will be in check.