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

[Lynnrb]

You and Calicamper want more controls where exactly?

Since the 1900's, we have put some restrictions in place on the 2nd Amendment (mostly to do with fully auto firearms and pistol licensing and open carry), which is why more than a few are reluctant to allow for any more. You ask how people and groups, like the NRA, are capable of becoming so stubborn to changes/revisions to gun laws; it's because there is a mentality exhibited by some that if they take away certain firearms/permissions, they can then take away others...a slippery slope.

The reality is gun violence, unlike the car analogy you keep clinging to, is not an accident issue...it's a crime issue. One has to do with inadvertent deaths the other has to do with intentional homicide/assault. Getting illegal firearms off the street is one thing we can all agree on. Saying that we need to put further burdens on the law-abiding population is where you'll start to meet staunch resistance.

You and others focus on negligent use/behavior by certain firearm owners, or the lack of certification and training. The overwhelming majority of gun-related homicides are caused by pistols in the hands of repeat offenders....if you and others were truly serious about reducing gun violence, you would focus your advocacy efforts on restrictive pistol permitting/registration (which already happens to a large degree in many states) and on increasing punishment for criminals across the board.

I'm not saying that I would fully embrace such an approach (at least not additional pistol licensing, since my state makes it tough enough as it is), but logically speaking, those should be your areas of focus if you were truly in favor of reducing gun violence. And yet all I hear from you and others is that we need to increase the licensing, restrictions, burdens for everyone and every weapon.

Many gun/injuries are accidental. If the car/gun analogy is to be used, we must admit cars are are much more necessary to every day life than guns. So not a good analogy.

 

[Dalko43]

Defending your right to bear arms also includes making sure those who dont have that right are not doing so. At least not easily and in plain sight at gun shops purchasing ammo and shooting ranges.

I have no idea what you meant by this.

 

[Dalko43]

Dalko, it's also important not to pigeon hole responses and opinions for your own arguments. I never said that I feel ONLY more controls will suffice. I explicitly said, several times, that it will take a multi-faceted approach to reduce our gun deaths which are currently at disgustingly high levels. You can't pick and choose what you want to hear, my friend.

A) I think we should differentiate between gun deaths and gun homicides. I know certain people prefer to use gun deaths (which includes murders and suicides) because they feel it gives their opinions stronger credibility. The reality is suicide is a whole separate issue, and taking away or greatly restricting firearm access doesn't necessarily correlate to lower suicide rates. If you disagree with that concept, please refer to my earlier post regarding Japan.

B) Please explain what you mean by a "multi-faceted" approach. So far, I've only seen you make vague references to increased restrictions and licensing on the society as a whole. If you have other ideas or perhaps want to explain some that you have already mentioned in greater detail, I'm all ears.

 

[bob280zx]

Many gun/injuries are accidental. If the car/gun analogy is to be used, we must admit cars are are much more necessary to every day life than guns. So not a good analogy.

One of the common phrases invoked by proponents of more gun control is an often teary eyed "if it saves one life". What we must admit is that the priority isnt always saving lives. Society has decided that the utility of auto use outweighs the cost of the thousands of lives lost.

 

[Lynnrb]

One of the common phrases invoked by proponents of more gun control is an often teary eyed "if it saves one life". What we must admit is that the priority isnt always saving lives. Society has decided that the utility of auto use outweighs the cost of the thousands of lives lost.

Steps have been taken to make auto travel safer. These steps are expensive but considered worthwhile.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

Please give an example of what you are using to base your premise on. All I see is an expansion if our rights in the last 4 decades.

Its not been an expansion of our rights, its been stripping down of laws that violate the constitution.

 

[bob280zx]

Steps have been taken to make auto travel safer. These steps are expense but considered worthwhile.

You may have missed the point. Sure cars are safer but thousands are still killed. Society is willing to accept that cost.

 

[JWP58]

I'll share a little first hand experience.

While at work I happened upon an unsavory individual, who decided to strangle his girlfriend, ********** her around, and hold her at their place for a while against her will...for the third time (that im aware of). While on scene waiting to transport him to the clink he asks "did you go elk hunting this year? I did and didn't see ****". I did go elk hunting this year, and that dirtbag is EXACTLY why I was carrying my Glock 23 during bow season. Pure scum that is obviously violent is not someone I want to run across 4 miles from the trailhead.

Once again, I will never volunteer to be punished for crimes I don't commit, therefor I will never agree to further regulations on firearms. Because as we all know (as shown in this thread) it is only an incremental agenda to eventually ban firearms completely. They'll claim its for the "children", and "stop being selfish, give up your rights for the greater good". Its B.S.

 

[Christophe Noel]

it is only an incremental agenda to eventually ban firearms completely. They'll claim its for the "children", and "stop being selfish, give up your rights for the greater good". Its B.S.

I think that is a generalization that maybe isn't entirely true, at least not for me. To be frank, I really hate guns. I grew up around them, respect them, but if they all vanished, I'd be stoked. But, that's not going to happen. I have scads of friends and family that love their guns and they're an integral part of their lives. - I don't want those people to be deprived of their right and ability to carry, and even own whatever gun they want. -

So, there are numbers of us who don't think this issue is all or nothing. The extremes are: Own any gun with no restrictions, or ban them all. Either is not a solution. Or, remotely realistic. I think you SHOULD be allowed to carry. I also think something has to be done about the proliferation of guns, our unfortunate number of gun related deaths each year, and the laws, which I think both sides agree, include some goofy and ineffective regulations.

 

[Lynnrb]

Its not been an expansion of our rights, its been stripping down of laws that violate the constitution.

I asked for an example. If you mean voting rights laws. civil liberty laws, freedom of information laws, then I disagree with you.

 

[Lynnrb]

You may have missed the point. Sure cars are safer but thousands are still killed. Society is willing to accept that cost.

That is because cars have constructive uses that make our way of life possible. But we still strive to make them safer.

 

[bob280zx]

That is because cars have constructive uses that make our way of life possible. But we still strive to make them safer.

Yeah kind of my point. Society has decided 30,000 lives is an acceptable price to pay for those "constructive uses". Sure there are safety improvements but what would happen if the "car control" folks were clamoring as loudly as the "gun control" crowd?

Guns are much easier to demonize.

BTW That is a sweet ride you've got. A real classic!

 

[Lynnrb]

Yeah kind of my point. Society has decided 30,000 lives is an acceptable price to pay for those "constructive uses". Sure there are safety improvements but what would happen if the "car control" folks were clamoring as loudly as the "gun control" crowd?

Guns are much easier to demonize.

BTW That is a sweet ride you've got. A real classic!

Making cars safer has not restricted their availability.

 

[calicamper]

Making cars safer has not restricted their availability.

Not to mention improving car safety and how we use them is how we move forward. As mentioned by many the gun topic is not a do nothing or ban all guns argument. The gun owners who jump to the OMG the sky is falling they are going to take my guns are going to hurt their cause more than the gun owners who agree that some smarter ideas can be found and used to help address the issue of guns being traded swapped, loaded and used by people openly who really should not have access to them. No that is not the same thing as arguing that we can prevent criminals from getting guns !!!! That will never be fixed till legal owners lock up firearms so they are not easily stolen, and stop selling them to random people on the street. < Point being legal owners have a big responsibility to make sure their guns are secure and not easily taken/used by people who shouldnt have access to them. That would fix a very large number of our issues today.

 

[bob280zx]

Making cars safer has not restricted their availability.

Avoiding the question. Never mind.