On the matter of gun control, isn't it time to agree to disagree?

originally posted by: seagull
I'm sure there is...

Somewhere.

But folks like me aren't who you want to go to for it.

I'm fully in favor of agreeing to disagree...but common ground is, in all honesty, asking too much from me. It's the anarchist in me, I suppose...at least where my second amendment rights are concerned.

First amendment should be unbound. So, too, should, the second. These are the two most important parts of the Constitution.

MHO, of course. Feel free to disagree.

Don't know if I am going to disagree, but would like some clarification. I live in a nice suburb, 2 houses down from me is 4 or 5 adults, and a multitude of children living in a rental property, the cops are there on average once a month. No idea if they own firearms or not, but damn sure don't want them to have access to RPG's. While I understand the anarchy, logic and common sense has to come in play somewhere. What would be your stance on a situation like this?

originally posted by: Seraii
a reply to: seaswine

Yes in response to that. It is definitely time to agree to disagree, all this arguing and bickering obviously gets us nowhere. It leads us to an unsatisfying response and thoughts continue to rage.

At this point the issue is just that either or people are going to argue and complain if something doesn't happen and then after the matter too. And to be honest. Both can go the same ways. It's really 50/50, they can both have a similar response, ban guns or not. They can both go down hill no matter what.
Its time for this argument to end.

-Seraii

There should never be an argument about banning guns, some folks rely on them, I worked in agriculture for many years, there are a lot of 4 legged predators in the wild. It is not an either/or situation, lawful gun owners make many good points, what steps do we take to eliminate the irresponsible, insane, and untrained, while not stepping on the rights of those that lawfully and responsibly own firearms.

originally posted by: SaltyRibeye
a reply to: ~Lucidity


Well a civil war wouldnt last long at all since lefties tend to dislike guns.

Theyd bring slaps and hair pulling to a gun fight.

I believe it would be a good thing, the nation could use some cleansing of leftists.

Seriously, you are bringing name calling and partisanship to a thread that has been fairly reasonable so far. I would be one of those leftists, a veteran, own firearms, and am trained to use them. Kind of blows your argument out of the water.

I suppose we can agree to disagree. IMHO the 2nd Amendment trumps all the rest. Without it we as citizens have no way to usurp tyrannical government. I for one want give up my cival liberties for security. Anyone that does is a fool. I agree we need way better screening for those Americans that want to own firearms. I would even go for the legal age to purchase a firearm be raised. At least to the age of when mental health problems manifest's in young men. I have read this is in the mid 20's....no professional here just read that somewhere.

Making the 99% of us that own firearms and are responsible gun owners tow the line for the 1% that are mentally ill and use a firearm to kill others isn't the way to go. Mental health screenings, much stiffer background check, and class's to show the proper use and care of said firearm should be the norm. There's a multitude of things that can be done to curb these nutcase mass shootings. Let's address violent video games that take the empathy out of killing. I mean we have kids sitting in there homes on X-Box playing war games....the point of which is to kill the other person your online playing & talking with.....crazy, I know. But that's what's going on. Slowly taking the mental process to where taking a life is a walk in the park.

Take that out into the real world with a mentally ill person and bingo....mass killing, zero remorse. Just like video games. Not saying video games are the only culprit.....but you gotta see they don't help when they take the sheer damn horror of taking a life and turn it into ENTERTAINMENT for our youth. Sorry I got so long winded, feelings are pretty strong on this particular subject.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: seaswine

We've now argued it back and forth for weeks and haven't found this definitive answer. So let's, in the name of good faith and community, agree to disagree??

I'm just going to agree - it's easier

Anything to avoid getting myself shot

And that demonstrates, in a few words, why nothing can be achieved. Because so many on both sides can't do anything other than resort to wildly hyperbolic speech at the very mention of gun rights or gun control.

Maybe once people put their big boy/big girl pants on and keep them on, something can happen.

Till then, we're stuck with oh-so-witty gems like this.

originally posted by: openyourmind1262


Making the 99% of us that own firearms and are responsible gun owners tow the line for the 1% that are mentally ill and use a firearm to kill others isn't the way to go. Mental health screenings, much stiffer background check, and class's to show the proper use and care of said firearm should be the norm. There's a multitude of things that can be done to curb these nutcase mass shootings. Let's address violent video games that take the empathy out of killing. I mean we have kids sitting in there homes on X-Box playing war games....the point of which is to kill the other person your online playing & talking with.....crazy, I know. But that's what's going on. Slowly taking the mental process to where taking a life is a walk in the park.

Take that out into the real world with a mentally ill person and bingo....mass killing, zero remorse. Just like video games. Not saying video games are the only culprit.....but you gotta see they don't help when they take the sheer damn horror of taking a life and turn it into ENTERTAINMENT for our youth. Sorry I got so long winded, feelings are pretty strong on this particular subject.

I would whole heartedly agree with you, stronger back ground checks, and mental health screenings would be a good start. I have shot competition and a firearm in the hands of a trained individual is something to behold, a firearm in the hands of an idiot, something to be feared.

a reply to: BubbaJoe

By unbound I mean firearms. To my mind, an RPG, while cool, isn't a firearm. It's a grenade launcher on steroids. Semantics, I suppose, but there it is.

If they're causing a ruckus, which from what you've said is the case, I'd agree with you.

But there are already a sufficiency of laws on the books to cover this. An over-sufficiency, IMHO. What's lacking is enforcement.

If laws we must have, then they need to be enforced properly. That's our jobs as citizens of this, or any other country. Isn't it?

a reply to: Shamrock6

Oh come on! That was at least as good as Jimmy Fallon. If we don't laugh, we'll cry.

How about a thermonuclear dose of reality:

New CT anti-gun law, 2013.

The time has run out to register your "assault weapon" or your magazines greater than 10 rounds. The politicians ordered the DEP to put together the list of known offenders so they can be arrested, door-to-door style.

The effort was instantly hushed and quashed when it was determined that on this list was almost 70% of the entire state's state police, local police, EMTs, firefighters, CEOs and board members of nearly every significant tax paying company in the state, and most state, local politicians.

To date no one has been arrested under the 2013 law except for additional charges when they were arrested for other crimes FIRST. So who's going to do the gun collecting and arrests?

I live here in CT and work as a contractor inside the govt so I know the real story. Not the crap told in the media.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: BubbaJoe

By unbound I mean firearms. To my mind, an RPG, while cool, isn't a firearm. It's a grenade launcher on steroids. Semantics, I suppose, but there it is.

If they're causing a ruckus, which from what you've said is the case, I'd agree with you.

But there are already a sufficiency of laws on the books to cover this. An over-sufficiency, IMHO. What's lacking is enforcement.

If laws we must have, then they need to be enforced properly. That's our jobs as citizens of this, or any other country. Isn't it?

Semantics, it is, but I think we could both probably agree to some restrictions, and definitely agree on the enforcement portion. While I realize it might put more requirements on responsible gun owners, I think more enforcement to keep firearms out of the hands of the irresponsible, insane, and untrained would be a solid goal to work towards.

originally posted by: tkwasny
How about a thermonuclear dose of reality:

New CT anti-gun law, 2013.

The time has run out to register your "assault weapon" or your magazines greater than 10 rounds. The politicians ordered the DEP to put together the list of known offenders so they can be arrested, door-to-door style.

The effort was instantly hushed and quashed when it was determined that on this list was almost 70% of the entire state's state police, local police, EMTs, firefighters, CEOs and board members of nearly every significant tax paying company in the state, and most state, local politicians.

To date no one has been arrested under the 2013 law except for additional charges when they were arrested for other crimes FIRST. So who's going to do the gun collecting and arrests?

I live here in CT and work as a contractor inside the govt so I know the real story. Not the crap told in the media.

Another case of knee jerk reactions, and not being enforced because of the parties involved. In my mind, much like the open carry of long guns, why do folks need 30 round magazines? Just one of those things I can find no logical justification for in my mind.

ETA: If I miss with the first 29, and need the 30th, I probably need to go back to range.

a reply to: kosmicjack

I see what you're saying and can't logically argue that point.

However, my OP was intended to address solely this site, and the over-posting of "gun" threads in general.
I am not attempting to argue any single persons view, feelings of beliefs on the issue. I'm simply stating that it seems at this point, we've seen and heard one another's beliefs on the issue. And I for one, have seen no progress or change of mind, or reasonable action to find a common ground.

This is a tough issue, no matter how big of a proverbial grain of salt you choose to take with it. If you think you can change someone's mind over a forum via the internet, you're mistaken.

a reply to: queenofswords

This thread demonstrates this is a complex issue. Any solution needs to be multi-variate.

While tragic, are mass shootings statistically even a problem? With 330+ million Americans with 1.2 guns per capita, it is amazing mass shootings are less than 1% of gun deaths per year.

No one wants to see a church or school shot up. But why does the media focus on that 1%? The other 99% don't count? They are not worthy of national discussion?

Maybe something can be done about it without erosion of civil liberties. But I do NOT trust legislators now-a-days to develop that "something". The same bunch facilitating death and destruction of thousands every year elsewhere in the world.

I do not trust most Americans, entitled lot of them who believe someone owes them safety against everything always. Far be it from them to provide their own modicum of self protection or even be slightly aware/educated on what goes on around them.

Just because I do not have an immediate solution to a very complex social problem does not mean I am ready to trust pathetic Americans and criminal politicians to decide what I am to do or give up to ensure both groups are taken care of.

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: queenofswords

This thread demonstrates this is a complex issue. Any solution needs to be multi-variate.

While tragic, are mass shootings statistically even a problem? With 330+ million Americans with 1.2 guns per capita, it is amazing mass shootings are less than 1% of gun deaths per year.

No one wants to see a church or school shot up. But why does the media focus on that 1%? The other 99% don't count? They are not worthy of national discussion?

Maybe something can be done about it without erosion of civil liberties. But I do NOT trust legislators now-a-days to develop that "something". The same bunch facilitating death and destruction of thousands every year elsewhere in the world.

I do not trust most Americans, entitled lot of them who believe someone owes them safety against everything always. Far be it from them to provide their own modicum of self protection or even be slightly aware/educated on what goes on around them.

Just because I do not have an immediate solution to a very complex social problem does not mean I am ready to trust pathetic Americans and criminal politicians to decide what I am to do or give up to ensure both groups are taken care of.

I think most killings are exchanges between two individuals, and I don't remember the stats, but most of them know each other. Mass shootings are random, and truly innocent lives are taken, think Sandy Hook, or the Aurora CO theater shootings, this is why they get the attention.

The mass shootings touch everyone's emotions, and there are all kinds of knee jerk reactions. We need to get past those, and actually seek out some real answers. Am not sure why you don't trust pathetic American's, are you not from here perhaps. I am thinking you may have another ax to grind.

I am perfectly fine agreeing to disagree.

what I can't tolerate is having a tragedy that happens 1500 miles be a predicating factor in me losing my ability to live my life as I am living my life right now.

Emotional knee jerk responses are not how one should run a country. Especially a country that possesses nuclear power. The last time we allowed that, we got that pile of steaming dog crap known as The Patriot Act. Which is among the greatest misnomers in mankinds history.

We are a Constitutional Republic which protects the rights of the individual. As an individual, I have not had any behavior or acts which would indicate the possibility of violence....I can't seem to grasp why I would have my access to my basic human rights reduced.

a reply to: openyourmind1262

You are extremely correct. I am young and my life involves extreme amount of gaming on my PC, but I'm not saying I'm a crazed psychopath who doesn't have empathy for others situations.. But I can confirm, depending on the person, that the empathy for others (of course based off of what they're playing) slowly degrades away from certain situations and players.

Now this has never happened to me, if I were to ever own a firearm id make sure to be responsible with it, aside from me, with a few others I've seen then degrade slowly over their years of playing video games and not getting enough reality. It can melt the mind and form it into something far unwanted.

Hence why I like to be outdoors too, isolation would drive me completely bonkers.

I'm a citizen of Oregon and the sad thing here is that before this no one focused on gun laws. The majority amount is what im referring to here. We have a lot of crime here in certain areas and I don't know many or have heard/seen many who promote gun laws.
Before this there was the Clackamas town center shooting here. After that people briefly cared about gun laws.
I'm not one on either side, I agree on both sides for fight against and fighting for gun laws. But this all seems interesting to me
It seems that after a tragedy has been done and over with, people seem to tend to lose interest.

(excuse my double post)
-Seraii

originally posted by: seaswineSo let's, in the name of good faith and community, agree to disagree??

How can one disagree with a foaming at the mouth gun waving drunk moronic believer who takes it personally that you think that Jesus wasn't a historical person, or that gays should have the same rights as anyone else??
Yeah, HE'LL agree to disagree!
Bang, you're dead!

(Or shot while trying to escape!)

If I were emperor, it would mean your life if anyone is caught with a firearm of any sort on the continental US!
Not cops, not soldiers, not anyone!
Go back to stones and knives if you must.
Slingshots can be deadly! *__-

Sorry, but I do not want my idiot neighbors (and that means ALL OF YOU) armed with guns; it's just too easy to pull the trigger.

If you live in America, and want to restrict guns, you are nothing but a traitor to the countries ideals and should have your citizenship revoked, same goes for every other article and ammendment. Don't like what America was founded on then you don't belong simple as that.