Guns, Guns Guns

Everyone please take cover:
We are told, and I believe it, that the terroist represent a minority of the Islamic faith, and that we should not judge all Muslims by their actions. I agree with this statement.
I bring it up because we are being asked to judge all gun users as if they are as dangerous as those people in the mryiad of stories we hear regrading gun violence. I maintain that the they people who prepetuate gun violence are in the same type of statisical minority as the terroists.
As the most efficent type of weapon, handled on a personal scale, the gun has drawn the attention of people who do feel it should be banned. What if the most effcient weapon today was a crossbow which allowed automatic reloading of up to 10 arrows and no one ever heard anything of guns? I fully believe the people argueing against guns would argue against the crossbow. Or the bow itself. Think how fast a person can load and draw and shoot a bow. Would they make laws restricting the size of a quiver to 10 arrows or less? You had better believe it.
Guns aren't the issue, the laws facing people who want guns aren't the issue. It is the ability to destroy, measured by ammo count, that matters. No matter the weapon, the debate will exist.

Commodore Oakius wrote:Everyone please take cover:
We are told, and I believe it, that the terroist represent a minority of the Islamic faith, and that we should not judge all Muslims by their actions. I agree with this statement.
I bring it up because we are being asked to judge all gun users as if they are as dangerous as those people in the mryiad of stories we hear regrading gun violence. I maintain that the they people who prepetuate gun violence are in the same type of statisical minority as the terroists.
As the most efficent type of weapon, handled on a personal scale, the gun has drawn the attention of people who do feel it should be banned. What if the most effcient weapon today was a crossbow which allowed automatic reloading of up to 10 arrows and no one ever heard anything of guns? I fully believe the people argueing against guns would argue against the crossbow. Or the bow itself. Think how fast a person can load and draw and shoot a bow. Would they make laws restricting the size of a quiver to 10 arrows or less? You had better believe it.
Guns aren't the issue, the laws facing people who want guns aren't the issue. It is the ability to destroy, measured by ammo count, that matters. No matter the weapon, the debate will exist.

They did and were ignored self preservation being a very hard instinct to overturn by flawed logic.

Now for something light a friend sent me:

Medicare - Part G - Nursing Home Plan

Say you're an older senior citizen and can no longer take care of yourself. The government says there's no Nursing Home care available for you. So, what do you do? You opt for Part G.

Our plan gives anyone 65 years or older a gun (Part G) and four bullets. You are allowed to shoot four politicians. This means, of course, that you'll be sent to prison where you'll receive three meals a day, a roof over your head, central heating & air conditioning, cable TV, library, and all the Health Care you need. Need new teeth? No problem. Need glasses? That's great. Need a hearing aid, new hip, knees, kidney, lungs, sex change, or heart? They're all covered.

As an added bonus, your kids can come and visit you at least as often as they do now!

And, who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just told you they can't afford for you to go into a home. And....you can get rid of 4 useless politicians while you're at it. And now, because you're a prisoner, you don't have to pay any more income taxes.

Is this a great country or what?

No wonder the politicians are nervous the public are seeing their actions are not in their interests but, self serving.

Poker

I loved that Pokermind.
Thats quite funny.

We are told, and I believe it, that the terroist represent a minority of the Islamic faith, and that we should not judge all Muslims by their actions.

Otherwise we would have to judge all christians by the fanatical extremeists you can easily dig up from there as well.

I bring it up because we are being asked to judge all gun users as if they are as dangerous as those people in the mryiad of stories we hear regrading gun violence.

The problem with that comparison is that a loaded gun is ALWAYS inherently dangerous, a person isnt.

I maintain that the they people who prepetuate gun violence are in the same type of statisical minority as the terroists.

Pretty much yeah. Since terrorists recruit they get a bit larger and diverse groupings, but it´s still close enough.

As the most efficent type of weapon, handled on a personal scale, the gun has drawn the attention of people who do feel it should be banned.

That is a far too wide generalisation. Only a minority wants to BAN guns.
And a larger minority merely wants sane regulations.

Think how fast a person can load and draw and shoot a bow.

Take a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk&x-yt-cl
It´s a bit chatty, but it shows some awesome skills. Like shooting 3 arrows in less than ONE second.

What if the most effcient weapon today was a crossbow which allowed automatic reloading of up to 10 arrows and no one ever heard anything of guns? I fully believe the people argueing against guns would argue against the crossbow. Or the bow itself. Think how fast a person can load and draw and shoot a bow. Would they make laws restricting the size of a quiver to 10 arrows or less? You had better believe it.

Hyperbole and no connection with reality.

Tenshinai wrote:
Otherwise we would have to judge all christians by the fanatical extremeists you can easily dig up from there as well.

True, and I can freely admit that there were, and are, plenty of Christians that are just as fanatical. However, this was not the point to be addressed.

The problem with that comparison is that a loaded gun is ALWAYS inherently dangerous, a person isnt.

Perhaps, but a gun should never be loaded unless the person has an intention of using it. An unloaded gun, which is the state a gun is most often in when being owned by the average gun owner, is just as inherently dangeroug as a person. Push a persons buttons enough, they become dangerous, just as a loaded gun is dangerous. An average person with not undue pressure excerted is not a danger, until you apply the proper pressure to them. A gun not loaded is not dangerous, until you load it with the proper ammo.

I maintain that the they people who prepetuate gun violence are in the same type of statisical minority as the terroists.

Pretty much yeah. Since terrorists recruit they get a bit larger and diverse groupings, but it´s still close enough.

I left my quote in because I was unsure of what you meant by this statement you made. You are agreeing with me then? That people who perpetuate gun violence are not the true representation of responisble gun owners, as the terrorists are not a true representation of the Islamic fatih? Therefore, we cannot condemn guns, just like we cannot condemn Islam. And I know you dont really want to condemn guns so much as want stricter gun laws, I'll address that below.

That is a far too wide generalisation. Only a minority wants to BAN guns.
And a larger minority merely wants sane regulations.

I agree it was a generalization and I should have stated that they want to ban guns OR have stricter gun laws. The truth is the gun laws we have are actually quite strict. Take the instance of Sandy Hook Elementary. A tragedy. The man would committed it did not use his own weapons. He was not allowed to have his own, based on the current gun laws of CT. He got his hands on anothers guns. That person is criminally neglagent in allowing this person access to the guns, however the government cannot be checking up on everyone once a license to own has been issued, to make sure it isn't being abused. It would bring an Orwellian type of government about. It is unfortuante that it is in the position to only react when something goes wrong, but that is a side effect of the concept that all men are innocent til proven guilty. We cannot assume someone will do something wrong and curtail their freedoms based on that assumption. The movie Minority Report makes this case.

Take a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk&x-yt-cl
It´s a bit chatty, but it shows some awesome skills. Like shooting 3 arrows in less than ONE second.

So again, showing that, if not for guns, a bow and arrow may be the most dangerous weapons around.

What if the most effcient weapon today was a crossbow which allowed automatic reloading of up to 10 arrows and no one ever heard anything of guns? I fully believe the people argueing against guns would argue against the crossbow. Or the bow itself. Think how fast a person can load and draw and shoot a bow. Would they make laws restricting the size of a quiver to 10 arrows or less? You had better believe it.

Hyperbole and no connection with reality.

But your own video shows how quickly a person can fire a bow. Do you not think if firearms were never invented that the bow wouldn't have remained the most effedctive weapon? It changed warfare completely. Granted that is my opiniopn, but no other weapon caould allow this person to kill 3 people in a second or 2 at a range greater then a pike. Seems dangerous to me.

DDHvi wrote:

Annachie wrote:Not quite. The Oathkeepers vow to not obey any orders that they think violates the constitution of the United States, ironically it appears that they will violate federal and state constitutions to do so.

I wonder, how could they violate the federal constitution in order to not violate the constitution of the United States. At present is seem the big shots are reserving the violation of the US constitution as their own turf.

.

One of their direct vows is not to enforce any Martial law, which is, in the example of Texas, a power assigned to the Govenor by the Texas constitution.
They also claim they will not aid the federal government in putting down insurection, which is something the federal constitution addresses.

Many years ago while at a mates place, down here in Oz, I saw a story on the news which showed someone loading a shotgun and pointing it at the camera. It was edited though.
Anyway my friends father, president of the local sporting shooters assoc, who was also in the room, was instantly on the phone to the local firearms control officer, and basically they were threaening to kick the guy out of the sporting shooters and revoke hus fire arms license unless it could be shown that the TV crew had edited it to make it look like a loaded gun was pointed at a camera.

My point. If you want gun safety then you have to allow periodic checks on storage and conditions.

After all, we get road worthy certs on cars. For that matter some area you must be able to proove you have somewhere to park a car before you can register it.

Oh, and in general, US gun laws are not real strict at all.

Going a little off topic.

If a "road worthy cert" on cars is a vehicle safety inspection. Not required in FL. It is a state by state thing.

Which I find much more troubling personally than guns to be honest. "You checked your brakes and tires in what decade." As a car pulls up to a stop behind me.

Not that growing up in Western New York State it wasn't a way to scam id10ts for unneeded repairs by the unscrupulous. <shrug>

Or people to get the inspection sticker without the inspection.

Really can't win for losing.

Just saying,
T2M

Annachie wrote:Many years ago while at a mates place, down here in Oz, I saw a story on the news which showed someone loading a shotgun and pointing it at the camera. It was edited though.
Anyway my friends father, president of the local sporting shooters assoc, who was also in the room, was instantly on the phone to the local firearms control officer, and basically they were threaening to kick the guy out of the sporting shooters and revoke hus fire arms license unless it could be shown that the TV crew had edited it to make it look like a loaded gun was pointed at a camera.

My point. If you want gun safety then you have to allow periodic checks on storage and conditions.

After all, we get road worthy certs on cars. For that matter some area you must be able to proove you have somewhere to park a car before you can register it.

Oh, and in general, US gun laws are not real strict at all.

Yeah, thats a mandatory thing here, as in you have your car checked, and the warrant of fitness is valid, or you run up enough tickets that you can say goodbye to your car and license for 6 months. tests have to be done yearly, and covers everything from tires to lights to suspension and safety belts.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Going a little off topic.

If a "road worthy cert" on cars is a vehicle safety inspection. Not required in FL. It is a state by state thing.

Which I find much more troubling personally than guns to be honest. "You checked your brakes and tires in what decade." As a car pulls up to a stop behind me.

Not that growing up in Western New York State it wasn't a way to scam id10ts for unneeded repairs by the unscrupulous. <shrug>

Or people to get the inspection sticker without the inspection.

Really can't win for losing.

Just saying,
T2M

Annachie wrote:Many years ago while at a mates place, down here in Oz, I saw a story on the news which showed someone loading a shotgun and pointing it at the camera. It was edited though.
Anyway my friends father, president of the local sporting shooters assoc, who was also in the room, was instantly on the phone to the local firearms control officer, and basically they were threaening to kick the guy out of the sporting shooters and revoke hus fire arms license unless it could be shown that the TV crew had edited it to make it look like a loaded gun was pointed at a camera.

My point. If you want gun safety then you have to allow periodic checks on storage and conditions.

After all, we get road worthy certs on cars. For that matter some area you must be able to proove you have somewhere to park a car before you can register it.

Oh, and in general, US gun laws are not real strict at all.

Annachie wrote:Many years ago while at a mates place, down here in Oz, I saw a story on the news which showed someone loading a shotgun and pointing it at the camera. It was edited though.
Anyway my friends father, president of the local sporting shooters assoc, who was also in the room, was instantly on the phone to the local firearms control officer, and basically they were threaening to kick the guy out of the sporting shooters and revoke hus fire arms license unless it could be shown that the TV crew had edited it to make it look like a loaded gun was pointed at a camera.

And quite rightly so. That is an example of reckless use of a gun. It should never be pointed at a person, loaded or unloaded, unless that person is legitimately threatening your family or home, or another persons life.

My point. If you want gun safety then you have to allow periodic checks on storage and conditions.

I do not intend this statement with sarcsm. I just want to make sure you are saying what I think you are: So you are saying some form of gevernment, most likely local police, should be allowed to come into my home and check on the storage conditions of my personal firearms?
If not, please clarify.
If that is your point, absolutely not. You have to have a just cause to say I have been handling and storing my firearms incorrectly, at the least you need to have a complaint to the effect that I have been.

After all, we get road worthy certs on cars. For that matter some area you must be able to proove you have somewhere to park a car before you can register it.

Inspections on a car, which is in daily use on the roads where numerous other motorist are, and where, a car that is faulty, can cause a massive accident on the interstates, is a whole different ball game from certifying that the storage of my firearms is proper. Most notably, firearms are not often used daily by the average oweners, and while you do use them around other people at a range, it would be most unwise to do anything so foolish as imporper useage of them on the range.

Oh, and in general, US gun laws are not real strict at all.

Actually, the laws to obtain them kinda are.
Try to get a firearms permit and have a criminal record, or a record of mental health concerns, of any kind, or even having at one time belonged to an organization that supported anarchy. You would find it very hard to get a permit under those conditions. You cannot forbid someone from a permit based on what they might do with it without any historical evidence to support your concern. Even crimes which are non-violent, such as swindling money from a hedgefund that you manage, will throw up flags and may stop you from getting a permit.
I will grant that once you have the legal firearm of your choice it is very difficult for the government to police you and your ownership. This is the basis of our justice system though, innocent until proven guilty. This stretches to the point that the government is not allowed to police what happens in my home with out a warrent or justifiable cause. Therefore they cannot check up on my weapon storeage. It is not illegal to display your weapons on mounts in your home, no law says they must be locked up. You may find this is the lack of strictness you had mentioned, but it goes back to the idea that the government has no cause to enter my home with out reason.
My primary argument will always be that the people who legally own guns are very unlikely to be the ones who commit crimes with those weapons. People who obtain their weapons illegally are at the higher percentage of those commiting crimes with guns. There are always excpetions, of course, but they cannot be used as a reason to restrict the law abiding citizen's rights. The vast majority of people who leagally own their firearms are the least likely to commit crimes with them and are not the ones who need to be controled more.