My compromise for gun control

So, you are pretty much saying you have shot people (plural)...


But you aren't violent...



Seems legit

 

There is nothing in my post that says I shot people, or even stabbed them. I suggest you pay closer attention to what you read and stop trying to project. I will admit to having punched someone really hard. As for my dislike for violence, I can only say that, if you have no other option, you gotta' do what you gotta' do to survive. I hear that, years ago, a guy named York was pretty non-violent, but he nevertheless killed a lot of Germans because they were trying to kill his fellow soldiers. Getting shot at does strange things to people. So does bullying and ganging up on someone. Push someone hard enough and, no matter how passive they may be, they will eventually snap. One guy I hit apologized to me at a later date for trying to force me into a fight I didn't want. This was over 30 years ago. Can't say he wasn't warned. Another bully never came back again. There were a number of those. Just because someone doesn't like violence doesn't mean they're no good at it. I don't miss any of that.

 

Sooo like, did you shoot anyone or stab anyone?

 

I also am no fan of using violence at all but would with little hesitation if necessary. Rarely had to. Little chance I need a gun for it, which is mainly to thank to the society i live in.

 

I'm a peaceful guy. I like kitties, doggies , nature and generally most people with which I come in contact. Not a natural born hard ass. Somebody harms or tries to harm my family---or someone elses, for that matter, I won't hesitate to inflict a serious case of lead poisoning immediately, if not sooner. Our family has plenty of firearms, even though we shoot no animals , only targets. This is a big country with lots and lots of freedoms. Therefore and consequently, there are those that will play god-like roles with their freedoms and infringe on the rights of anyone that gets in their way and they are virtually free to do so. Often involving firearms. It's a damn shame that that has to be considered in our lives here. In fact I wish that all firearms and weapons of war would disappear from the face of the earth, except to be perhaps relegated to designated areas such as firing ranges. But--look at the world in general---and the humans in it. The blood lust is sickening and will more than likely continue nationally and LOCALLY until the end of humanity, for reasons that could be enumerated here, but will not. It has been said that there are 300 million weapons owned here, but anyone that thinks they would have a chance of defeating the United States military with them---is dreaming. So---as it stands--you want guns--have them. You don't want guns--don't have them. So it goes.

 

Another year another gun thread

And a lot of the same old same old….

Ok to deal with the OP first

So everyone in the US has to have a mandatory criminal background check and ‘mental’ evaluation so that a few want to own guns (gun ownership is around 30% personal 40% household mean 60-70% would have to be inconvenienced) I mean it would seem to me that these would have to be ongoing to be effective as there would always be changes in circumstance, so the cost would be I think be rather large. Also to me that smacks a lot like Big Brother with the government holding a lot of detailed knowledge I think that might be open to abuse. Also I don’t see why gun owners should get tax exemptions and be given public funds that are not open to everyone, I mean everyone has to have their privacy invaded but only gun owners get any benefit from it?

It seems to me this isn’t a great deal for the 60-70% of Americans that don’t own guns, it seems to me that if you wish to be a gun owner, that is you wish and you have the responsibilities that go along with it, such as the proposed mandatory criminal background checks and ‘mental’ evaluations.

And in return for these ‘compromises’ (invasion of privacy and increased taxes) those opposed to gun control seem to get a lot of things they desire not having local gun control measures they oppose, easy access to military grade firearms and accessories.

Sorry this doesn’t come across as a very good deal.

 

To those that say they feel they require military weapon out of fear of the ‘government’ I ask again when do you start shooting police officers, I mean what actions would ‘the government’ have do for you to begin killing policer offers and your political opponents?

And if someone’s reason for owning a gun is to kill police officers then would they pass the ‘mental’ evaluation’ suggested in the OP before they were allowed to own a gun?

 

Did they, where is that admitted?

 

Yeah, that's a hilarious claim. Was that the last thing he wrote down before committing suicide?

 

Hitler or the poster?

 

Hitler of course

 

So there seem to be two reasons been put forward by those opposing prudent gun control and for having ease of access to guns in the US -

To tackle crime

To fight a tyrannical government

Fighting tyranny

But as said the thing is if you are owning a gun to defend your country against political domestic threats then when do you open fire on police officers, when do you execute your political opponents, when do you begin killing what you see as ‘the enemy’.

I mean if someone is saying that the main or one of the main reasons why they want guns is to protect the US from political tyranny, when do they act when do you begin and who would they use their guns on first?

I mean if someone really thought the US was been taken over or invaded by ‘bad people’….or if they though certain politicians or journalists were truly ‘enemies of the people’, then under the banner of defending the country against such threats wouldn’t they be right to act and use their guns?

Fighting Crime

But is having easy access to guns a good way of tackling crime? I mean given the easy access to gun in the US shouldn’t crime be lower there than in places without ease of access to firearms? But the thing is that if you actually look at regular crime there isn’t that much difference between the US and comparable other countries, except in one type of crime in which the comparable countries differ immensely and that is in gun related homicides. So rather than been a good means of tackling crime ease of access to guns just seems to increase the likelihood of people getting killed by a gun.

 

There are plenty of gun owners who are fine with new laws that address the changing nature of what a gun is. It's only a vocal minority with a certain political view that protest this. To them "tyranny" is liberal (socialist) polices on welfare and gay rights. It is the discussion of gun laws itself. Really America only applies to white Christians who are too ignorant to understand tax. Literally any other sort of person is their moral justification for using guns. It's what makes people so uncomfortable with gun owners. We know what they are.

For this they violate OPSEC (bad for a militia don't you think) and thump their chest. I mean if Facebook will tell me you own a gun doesn't the evil government know too? Odd thing to me is these people get so upset when you have a sign that says there are guns in the house so don't try. That is "encouraging crime and drawing attention" You are supposed to not say anything and act when you must yet threats of Civil War are par for the course.

It shows most of these milta types have ZERO concept of how war works so if push comes to shove they are not ready. They can fantasize but their fundamental approach to it means they will fail.

 

Average citizens can’t own assault weapons. You have to jump through a lot of hoops to obtain one. You’re talking about what politicians label assault weapons which are a drastically watered down version of what militaries use. They’re missing auto sears, rate reducers, etc.....

People are killed by fists more than rifles in our country.

 

Right....

lol

 

diesal

LOL so in a duel you would refuse to have the gun offered because you think your fists are the more dangerous weapon….123456789 turn and….

Anyway – 2018 number of murder victims by

Firearms (of which rifle are just one type) - 10,265

Hands, fists, feet - 672

 

citation needed

 

What I wanna know is, does that approach actually work? Is there some forum out there where this guy goes and posts obvious misinformation and everyone is just like "oh okay, yeah that sounds right, fists totally kill more people than guns!"

 

Nah, it's to expose their lunacy

 

Mel

He is lying by omission, it’s a con game, an attempt to deceive.

*

He says there are more people killed by fist than by - RIFLES – specifically rifles - and that is actually true

Rifles – 297

Hands, Fists, Feet – 672

BUT and it is a very big but - what is not said is that rifles are only one type of firearm and if you look up murders by ALL types of firearms you find -

Rifles – 297

Shotguns – 235

Handguns – 6603

Types not known or unspecified – 3130

*

It is hoped that people will just accept that – rifles – means- all guns – and hope the unquestioning will just fall for the con and therefore think prudent gun control is not needed.

But anybody who has the slightest knowledge of the real world or thinks rationally would see such a statement and be dubious and these days the true information is a two minute google search away.

What I find is amusing is that many of the same gun supporting people that use such cons to spread untruths are often the very same that shout the loudest about ‘politicians’ ‘libtards’ and ‘the governemnt’ been liars.