Both sides of the gun conversation are RIDICULOUS

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I do not own any guns, but even I can see that guns are not the issue. You want us to talk about gun control when it is the human mind that needs more controls put into place. Just look at the Middle East. If they don't have a gun to kill kids with, they throw acid in their faces, stone them, rape them, sell them into the sex trade, behead them....

Taking guns away isn't the answer because it isn't even the question. So, this lunatic that killed twenty school kids, if he didn't have guns are we to assume that he wouldn't have taken his car and run them over while they waited to board a school bus? Are we to assume that he wouldn't have learned how to make home-made bombs and throw them into each classroom?

People like this aren't interested in guns - they are interested in killing, and they would simply find another way to do it without guns.

Your whole post is exactly why we need to have the conversation. I thank you for your post.

I do hope, though, that some will come into this thread and see that I AM NOT ADVOCATING TAKING AWAY OUR GUNS. In fact, I have stated that I fully believe that it cannot happen.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Answer
You actually answered your own question very quickly and effectively.

You say that gun owners see the laws as an attack on their rights and in the same digital breath, state that you see no good reason for someone to own an AR15.

The AR15 style rifle is the number one selling rifle in the US. There are MILLIONS privately owned at present yet, somehow, they account for less than 1% of firearm-related crime in the U.S.

In fact, around 2% of criminals are caught with anything that could be classified as an "Assault Weapon." That classification includes AK47's and their variants as well.

So, simple logic dictates that the AR15's primary use is anything but violent crime and death.

By going after the firearms that are least likely to be used in the course of a crime, tell me again how that doesn't look like a direct attack on the rights of law-abiding gun owners?

I've intentionally left out the sources of my fact because I want you to do some digging and see the numbers for yourself. Stop believing the media and look at the statistics presented by the DOJ and FBI.

Ahh yes, the old "you must be an msm sheep" crowd. The arrogance of your statements is downright stupid. Your statistics are also misleading. I'm well aware of the numbers. Perhaps you should do some research on how many of these weapons are used in mass casualty crimes, if you want to have an honest debate.

Also, you, like many others, are proving my point. I mentioned ar-15's. You immediately take that as I support a ban on them. The conversation cant even be had with someone like you.

Perhaps you should also do a bit of research as to why AR's are the most popular rifle to buy these days. A little hint-it has to do with the fact that up until 10 or so years ago, you couldnt buy them.

You missed the point entirely... yet you accuse me of arrogance. I think the reason you aren't finding a debate that works for you is that it has to be by your rules or you discount it entirely. I'm not trying to sound arrogant, but that is how I'm going to come across when I state facts that you so clearly disagree with.

You also claim that you don't support a ban but you are attacking the legitimacy of certain types of weapons... to what end, exactly?

Also, if you would do more research, you would know that even during the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that you elude to, AR15's could be purchased just as easily as they can be today. There were very minor cosmetic differences to the rifles sold during the ban but they still fired semi-automatic and held 30-round magazines. The sale of these types of rifles has gone up primarily due to a wider-acceptance of them among sportsmen and hunters, which led to them being offered by nearly every major firearms manufacturer in the country. They are now commonplace in magazines such as Field and Stream which would have never touched "assault rifles" 10 years ago.

Mass-casualty crimes account for a tiny insignificant percentage of overall crime, they're just the most highly publicized. I'm sure you know that, but you claim that as a mark against AR15's and similar weapons... why?

I'm going to assume that you actually do want a civil discussion and ask the question... what is it that you don't understand or want to know that prompted posting this thread? I have an extremely extensive background in firearms ownership, sales, legal issues, competitive use, and I am also former military. I thought I was being civil with my initial post, but obviously the internet makes everyone seem like a jackass.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Hello,
I like your post.I to wish there was a middle ground.The problem is that no matter how many times the gun issue comes up the extreme veiw point voices on both sides will always shout the loudest and in turn nothing gets done.Its like one person shouts and the other has to shout louder.

Now i am all for lets say a 2 week or month waiting period where they can do a full back ground check on you.Also maybe if you want to own a gun or buy a gun you have to take a pyscological test to see if you are sane or not.Maybe they could issue you a card then and you would have to have it to buy a gun?Just some thoughts .

Having said this i do own some guns.I think what get people scared is the extreme veiw point that the government is going to take away your guns that you bought legally from your houose.Now if they would have a buy back sale and offer me fair market value for my guns they can have them i am cool with it.Or maybe they could give us a couple thousdand dollar tax credit for the guns we turn in?Again just a thought.I just dont want to have to give up my guns that i bought legally for nothing.

Originally posted by Answer

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Answer
You actually answered your own question very quickly and effectively.

You say that gun owners see the laws as an attack on their rights and in the same digital breath, state that you see no good reason for someone to own an AR15.

The AR15 style rifle is the number one selling rifle in the US. There are MILLIONS privately owned at present yet, somehow, they account for less than 1% of firearm-related crime in the U.S.

In fact, around 2% of criminals are caught with anything that could be classified as an "Assault Weapon." That classification includes AK47's and their variants as well.

So, simple logic dictates that the AR15's primary use is anything but violent crime and death.

By going after the firearms that are least likely to be used in the course of a crime, tell me again how that doesn't look like a direct attack on the rights of law-abiding gun owners?

I've intentionally left out the sources of my fact because I want you to do some digging and see the numbers for yourself. Stop believing the media and look at the statistics presented by the DOJ and FBI.

Ahh yes, the old "you must be an msm sheep" crowd. The arrogance of your statements is downright stupid. Your statistics are also misleading. I'm well aware of the numbers. Perhaps you should do some research on how many of these weapons are used in mass casualty crimes, if you want to have an honest debate.

Also, you, like many others, are proving my point. I mentioned ar-15's. You immediately take that as I support a ban on them. The conversation cant even be had with someone like you.

Perhaps you should also do a bit of research as to why AR's are the most popular rifle to buy these days. A little hint-it has to do with the fact that up until 10 or so years ago, you couldnt buy them.

You missed the point entirely... yet you accuse me of arrogance. I think the reason you aren't finding a debate that works for you is that it has to be by your rules or you discount it entirely. I'm not trying to sound arrogant, but that is how I'm going to come across when I state facts that you so clearly disagree with.

You also claim that you don't support a ban but you are attacking the legitimacy of certain types of weapons... to what end, exactly?

Also, if you would do more research, you would know that even during the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that you elude to, AR15's could be purchased just as easily as they can be today. There were very minor cosmetic differences to the rifles sold during the ban but they still fired semi-automatic and held 30-round magazines. The sale of these types of rifles has gone up primarily due to a wider-acceptance of them among sportsmen and hunters, which led to them being offered by nearly every major firearms manufacturer in the country. They are now commonplace in magazines such as Field and Stream which would have never touched "assault rifles" 10 years ago.

Mass-casualty crimes account for a tiny insignificant percentage of overall crime, they're just the most highly publicized. I'm sure you know that, but you claim that as a mark against AR15's and similar weapons... why?

I'm going to assume that you actually do want a civil discussion and ask the question... what is it that you don't understand or want to know that prompted posting this thread? I have an extremely extensive background in firearms ownership, sales, legal issues, competitive use, and I am also former military. I thought I was being civil with my initial post, but obviously the internet makes everyone seem like a jackass.

1)Questioning is not attacking, but thanks for continually proving that you fall into the first category I listed in my op.

2)The only reason AR's became popular amongst hunters is that they lobbied to get them classified as a long rifle, and not an assault rifle. If you need 30 rounds to hit your target while hunting, you shouldnt be firing.

3)Mass casualty crimes are the topic of conversation. Pretty simple.

4)I am looking for true conversation. Not rhetoric. Seems its impossible to get that on this site these days.

Originally posted by othello
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Hello,
I like your post.I to wish there was a middle ground.The problem is that no matter how many times the gun issue comes up the extreme veiw point voices on both sides will always shout the loudest and in turn nothing gets done.Its like one person shouts and the other has to shout louder.

Now i am all for lets say a 2 week or month waiting period where they can do a full back ground check on you.Also maybe if you want to own a gun or buy a gun you have to take a pyscological test to see if you are sane or not.Maybe they could issue you a card then and you would have to have it to buy a gun?Just some thoughts .

Having said this i do own some guns.I think what get people scared is the extreme veiw point that the government is going to take away your guns that you bought legally from your houose.Now if they would have a buy back sale and offer me fair market value for my guns they can have them i am cool with it.Or maybe they could give us a couple thousdand dollar tax credit for the guns we turn in?Again just a thought.I just dont want to have to give up my guns that i bought legally for nothing.

I dont want to give up my guns at all. In fact, I WILL NOT. But there is a conversation to be had, for sure. And I'm with you, i think it starts with more rigorous qualifications before you can buy a gun.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


i hve a friend up in maine and they say they have to have a some sort of card to buy ammo so maybe something like that should be nation wide but on a broader scale to involve a psych evaluation or maybe a tax stamp for gunsw who knows

Originally posted by captaintyinknots


1)Questioning is not attacking, but thanks for continually proving that you fall into the first category I listed in my op.

2)The only reason AR's became popular amongst hunters is that they lobbied to get them classified as a long rifle, and not an assault rifle. If you need 30 rounds to hit your target while hunting, you shouldnt be firing.

3)Mass casualty crimes are the topic of conversation. Pretty simple.

4)I am looking for true conversation. Not rhetoric. Seems its impossible to get that on this site these days.

1)They're one in the same when you imply that something I enjoy is only good for mass-shootings. You criticize my viewpoints FROM THE START and then act like I'm a jackass for being defensive... right. You don't start a civil discussion by immediately discounting the opinion of others if it's not what you wanted to hear. Especially after you prod them along.

2)Incorrect. From an owner who also sold them in a hunting store, they are extremely popular among varmint/predator hunters and becoming more popular among deer hunters. In fact, I'd say they are one of the most commonly used rifles for hunting predators because they are ergonomic and easily configured for all situations. The collapsible stock and low recoil also make it easy for women and children to use the rifle. It frankly has nothing to do with 30 round magazines... but you wouldn't know that because of your lack of experience with the firearm. I mean that in the nicest way possible. The rifle is accurate, lightweight, ergonomic, reliable, easily configured to any type of scenario, relatively affordable, easy to disassemble and clean, has massive aftermarket support, can be fired by left handed or right handed shooters, and works well for multiple types of game as well as competitive and recreational shooting. It's the iPad of firearms... it just works very well for a lot of uses.

3)Mass casualty crimes, while tragic, are insignificant in the overall picture of crime. You can't have a firearms discussion without looking at the overall picture.

4)Ignoring all previous posts, let us have a discussion based on the real issue: mental illness. Ignoring the firearms debate altogether, the one factor that all of these tragedies have in common is mental illness. What are some reasonable methods to ensure that a mentally ill person is not able to cause harm to others?

Originally posted by Answer

Originally posted by captaintyinknots


1)Questioning is not attacking, but thanks for continually proving that you fall into the first category I listed in my op.

2)The only reason AR's became popular amongst hunters is that they lobbied to get them classified as a long rifle, and not an assault rifle. If you need 30 rounds to hit your target while hunting, you shouldnt be firing.

3)Mass casualty crimes are the topic of conversation. Pretty simple.

4)I am looking for true conversation. Not rhetoric. Seems its impossible to get that on this site these days.

1)They're one in the same when you imply that something I enjoy is only good for mass-shootings. You criticize my viewpoints FROM THE START and then act like I'm a jackass for being defensive... right. You don't start a civil discussion by immediately discounting the opinion of others if it's not what you wanted to hear. Especially after you prod them along.

2)Incorrect. From an owner who also sold them in a hunting store, they are extremely popular among varmint/predator hunters and becoming more popular among deer hunters. In fact, I'd say they are one of the most commonly used rifles for hunting predators because they are ergonomic and easily configured for all situations. The collapsible stock and low recoil also make it easy for women and children to use the rifle. It frankly has nothing to do with 30 round magazines... but you wouldn't know that because of your lack of experience with the firearm. I mean that in the nicest way possible. The rifle is accurate, lightweight, ergonomic, reliable, easily configured to any type of scenario, relatively affordable, easy to disassemble and clean, has massive aftermarket support, can be fired by left handed or right handed shooters, and works well for multiple types of game as well as competitive and recreational shooting. It's the iPad of firearms... it just works very well for a lot of uses.

3)Mass casualty crimes, while tragic, are insignificant in the overall picture of crime. You can't have a firearms discussion without looking at the overall picture.

4)Ignoring all previous posts, let us have a discussion based on the real issue: mental illness. Ignoring the firearms debate altogether, the one factor that all of these tragedies have in common is mental illness. What are some reasonable methods to ensure that a mentally ill person is not able to cause harm to others?

Sorry for the long quote,

Maybe the perps psychiatrist should be held accountable? four years

Then it's just a matter of time until all the health care professionals get locked-up.

Captain, you are being unreasonable. Answer is discussing the issue in the thread you made and asked for discussion in, in a very polite and respectful manner. As opposed to you that is only throwing around labels and calling names.

Give Answer a break man, you aren't helping your own cause. You want a discussion and talk of middle ground but now you refuse to discuss on middle ground?

Edit* Maybe you ought to walk away from the computer for a bit. It couldn't hurt, clear your head and come back with renewed perspective.

I agree, we all need to find some kind of middle ground.

This debate has gotten out of hand.

Originally posted by Answer

Originally posted by captaintyinknots


1)Questioning is not attacking, but thanks for continually proving that you fall into the first category I listed in my op.

2)The only reason AR's became popular amongst hunters is that they lobbied to get them classified as a long rifle, and not an assault rifle. If you need 30 rounds to hit your target while hunting, you shouldnt be firing.

3)Mass casualty crimes are the topic of conversation. Pretty simple.

4)I am looking for true conversation. Not rhetoric. Seems its impossible to get that on this site these days.

1)They're one in the same when you imply that something I enjoy is only good for mass-shootings. You criticize my viewpoints FROM THE START and then act like I'm a jackass for being defensive... right. You don't start a civil discussion by immediately discounting the opinion of others if it's not what you wanted to hear. Especially after you prod them along.

2)Incorrect. From an owner who also sold them in a hunting store, they are extremely popular among varmint/predator hunters and becoming more popular among deer hunters. In fact, I'd say they are one of the most commonly used rifles for hunting predators because they are ergonomic and easily configured for all situations. The collapsible stock and low recoil also make it easy for women and children to use the rifle. It frankly has nothing to do with 30 round magazines... but you wouldn't know that because of your lack of experience with the firearm. I mean that in the nicest way possible. The rifle is accurate, lightweight, ergonomic, reliable, easily configured to any type of scenario, relatively affordable, easy to disassemble and clean, has massive aftermarket support, can be fired by left handed or right handed shooters, and works well for multiple types of game as well as competitive and recreational shooting. It's the iPad of firearms... it just works very well for a lot of uses.

3)Mass casualty crimes, while tragic, are insignificant in the overall picture of crime. You can't have a firearms discussion without looking at the overall picture.

4)Ignoring all previous posts, let us have a discussion based on the real issue: mental illness. Ignoring the firearms debate altogether, the one factor that all of these tragedies have in common is mental illness. What are some reasonable methods to ensure that a mentally ill person is not able to cause harm to others?

1)Wrong. I asked a question. I did not imply anything. You automatically jumped to the defensive. I didnt put you there.

2)That doesnt refute what I said in any way.

3)They have a much greater impact psychological on a society. To deny that is to embrace ignorance.

4)It is more than a mental illness discussion. It is that, but it is more. It is a medication discussion (which is seperate). It is a gun discussion. It is a societal and socioeconomic discussion. To act as though there is only one factor here is, again, embracing ignorance.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Answer

Originally posted by captaintyinknots


1)Questioning is not attacking, but thanks for continually proving that you fall into the first category I listed in my op.

2)The only reason AR's became popular amongst hunters is that they lobbied to get them classified as a long rifle, and not an assault rifle. If you need 30 rounds to hit your target while hunting, you shouldnt be firing.

3)Mass casualty crimes are the topic of conversation. Pretty simple.

4)I am looking for true conversation. Not rhetoric. Seems its impossible to get that on this site these days.

1)They're one in the same when you imply that something I enjoy is only good for mass-shootings. You criticize my viewpoints FROM THE START and then act like I'm a jackass for being defensive... right. You don't start a civil discussion by immediately discounting the opinion of others if it's not what you wanted to hear. Especially after you prod them along.

2)Incorrect. From an owner who also sold them in a hunting store, they are extremely popular among varmint/predator hunters and becoming more popular among deer hunters. In fact, I'd say they are one of the most commonly used rifles for hunting predators because they are ergonomic and easily configured for all situations. The collapsible stock and low recoil also make it easy for women and children to use the rifle. It frankly has nothing to do with 30 round magazines... but you wouldn't know that because of your lack of experience with the firearm. I mean that in the nicest way possible. The rifle is accurate, lightweight, ergonomic, reliable, easily configured to any type of scenario, relatively affordable, easy to disassemble and clean, has massive aftermarket support, can be fired by left handed or right handed shooters, and works well for multiple types of game as well as competitive and recreational shooting. It's the iPad of firearms... it just works very well for a lot of uses.

3)Mass casualty crimes, while tragic, are insignificant in the overall picture of crime. You can't have a firearms discussion without looking at the overall picture.

4)Ignoring all previous posts, let us have a discussion based on the real issue: mental illness. Ignoring the firearms debate altogether, the one factor that all of these tragedies have in common is mental illness. What are some reasonable methods to ensure that a mentally ill person is not able to cause harm to others?

1)Wrong. I asked a question. I did not imply anything. You automatically jumped to the defensive. I didnt put you there.

2)That doesnt refute what I said in any way.

3)They have a much greater impact psychological on a society. To deny that is to embrace ignorance.

4)It is more than a mental illness discussion. It is that, but it is more. It is a medication discussion (which is seperate). It is a gun discussion. It is a societal and socioeconomic discussion. To act as though there is only one factor here is, again, embracing ignorance.

If you can't see #2 as refuting your point in any way then we have nothing further to discuss. Your mind is made up. I presented well-known information about the use of AR15's but that doesn't refute your point that they have no place among hunters?

Yeah, you're just here to troll. You certainly aren't interested in hearing an alternate viewpoint.

reply to post by Answer


Troll? Oh, that's right, I don't agree with you. I must be trolling.

No, you didn't refute any of my points. You stated why they were popular. If full autos were readily available, they'd be popular with hunters too. That doesn't mean they're needed for hunting.

And where exactly is your willingness to hear another viewpoint? So far all you've said is ' my viewpoint is right, no question about it'

Originally posted by sputniksteve
Captain, you are being unreasonable. Answer is discussing the issue in the thread you made and asked for discussion in, in a very polite and respectful manner. As opposed to you that is only throwing around labels and calling names.

Give Answer a break man, you aren't helping your own cause. You want a discussion and talk of middle ground but now you refuse to discuss on middle ground?

Edit* Maybe you ought to walk away from the computer for a bit. It couldn't hurt, clear your head and come back with renewed perspective.

edit on 12/16/2012 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)

I'm not being unreasonable in any way. All that is beingshown here is the very pro-gun folks out there aren't willing to discuss anything, at all. That they refuse to see any middle ground.

What is my cause, in your words?

And maw, don't think ill walk away. I enjoy lively debate.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Like I said maybe some time away will give you perspective. You are being unreasonable but you obviously dont see it. You are emotionally invested in the argument and im just telling you from another view. Take it or leave it. Obviously you left it. Take care.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Like I said maybe some time away will give you perspective. You are being unreasonable but you obviously dont see it. You are emotionally invested in the argument and im just telling you from another view. Take it or leave it. Obviously you left it. Take care.

Im not emotionally invested, in fact, I stand on the pro-rights side of this argument. I am trying to foster a conversation, and seeing it proven that it cant be had.

The 'other view' that you all claim is that they want to take all of our guns. It is an extreme stance, the same as those who want to actually do that have an extreme stance. Neither side is willing to budge one bit, and it is the reason nothing gets done, and it is the reason everyone sees it as all or nothing.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


I don't see anyone in this thread crying about anyone taking all our guns. I xertainly haven't. Relax, you just missed the discussion and ran off your audience.

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

I don't see anyone in this thread crying about anyone taking all our guns. I xertainly haven't. Relax, you just missed the discussion and ran off your audience.

This thread IS ABOUT those people, or did you miss that?