 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 "Gun Control" is not evil... |
Aaron Scott |
We already use it in the world today. We don't want Iran to get nukes. We didn't like it when North Korea die either.
First, where is the line? Is the right to bear arms unlimited? Can I have hand grenades and Stinger missiles? After all, the guvment might be coming for me in jets or helicopters!
Can I own machine guns?
How about 300 shotguns and 50,000 shells?
Is that a collector or a nut?
Very simply, we NEED better gun control. That doesn't mean taking guns away from us or necessarily forbidding us to carry them. It SHOULD mean a waiting period...it should mean a thorough background check, ESPECIALLY for mental/emotional issues.... You get the idea.
But red-meat, rabid NRA'ers think every single attempt to improve our world is a conspiracy.
Yes, it's the PERSON who shoots the gun. All the more reason to take greater care about who gets a gun.
At the same time, it cannot be ignored that no one is killing people with mastadon tusks or nuclear blasts or mustard gas. That at least implies that if you don't have that weapon available to you, you'll not use it when you get really upset.
I don't know the full answer, but it's clear that we don't have the answer thus far. If everyone is armed...then the bad guys have arms also. If not one is allowed to be armed...the bad guys might still have guns.
I do know that the answer does not appear to be simply resisting every call to make gun ownership/possession more difficult for buyers. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
10/2/15 8:27 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| Re: "Gun Control" is not evil... |
skinnybishop |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | We already use it in the world today. We don't want Iran to get nukes. We didn't like it when North Korea die either.
First, where is the line? Is the right to bear arms unlimited? Can I have hand grenades and Stinger missiles? After all, the guvment might be coming for me in jets or helicopters!
Can I own machine guns?
How about 300 shotguns and 50,000 shells?
Is that a collector or a nut?
Very simply, we NEED better gun control. That doesn't mean taking guns away from us or necessarily forbidding us to carry them. It SHOULD mean a waiting period...it should mean a thorough background check, ESPECIALLY for mental/emotional issues.... You get the idea.
But red-meat, rabid NRA'ers think every single attempt to improve our world is a conspiracy.
Yes, it's the PERSON who shoots the gun. All the more reason to take greater care about who gets a gun.
At the same time, it cannot be ignored that no one is killing people with mastadon tusks or nuclear blasts or mustard gas. That at least implies that if you don't have that weapon available to you, you'll not use it when you get really upset.
I don't know the full answer, but it's clear that we don't have the answer thus far. If everyone is armed...then the bad guys have arms also. If not one is allowed to be armed...the bad guys might still have guns.
I do know that the answer does not appear to be simply resisting every call to make gun ownership/possession more difficult for buyers. |
Meth is against the law to buy....but I could purchase some within the hour.
_________________
Eddie Wiggins |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1055
10/2/15 8:30 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: "Gun Control" is not evil... |
Nature Boy Florida |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | We already use it in the world today. We don't want Iran to get nukes. We didn't like it when North Korea die either.
First, where is the line? Is the right to bear arms unlimited? Can I have hand grenades and Stinger missiles? After all, the guvment might be coming for me in jets or helicopters!
Can I own machine guns?
How about 300 shotguns and 50,000 shells?
Is that a collector or a nut?
Very simply, we NEED better gun control. That doesn't mean taking guns away from us or necessarily forbidding us to carry them. It SHOULD mean a waiting period...it should mean a thorough background check, ESPECIALLY for mental/emotional issues.... You get the idea.
But red-meat, rabid NRA'ers think every single attempt to improve our world is a conspiracy.
Yes, it's the PERSON who shoots the gun. All the more reason to take greater care about who gets a gun.
At the same time, it cannot be ignored that no one is killing people with mastadon tusks or nuclear blasts or mustard gas. That at least implies that if you don't have that weapon available to you, you'll not use it when you get really upset.
I don't know the full answer, but it's clear that we don't have the answer thus far. If everyone is armed...then the bad guys have arms also. If not one is allowed to be armed...the bad guys might still have guns.
I do know that the answer does not appear to be simply resisting every call to make gun ownership/possession more difficult for buyers. |
This guy used handguns - are you advocating outlawing them?
While teaching at the local state college last night - I will admit - I wish I had a gun with me.(it is gun free zone). Colleges - with their numerous buildings - would be impossible to have armed guards at every door to enforce the no gun requirement with metal detectors.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16619
10/2/15 8:44 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
John Jett |
| figure out a way to remove every single gun from everyone in the world simultaneously, and you have a point, anything less is only people-control. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4955
10/2/15 8:55 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
c6thplayer1 |
| A small town close to where I live has a city ordinance that you must own a firearm. There has been one shooting that town when a man broke into anothers house. He was killed by the owner of the home with a firearm. No charges were made. that happened several years ago. Not a single other crime has been committed in that town with a fire arm. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6385
10/2/15 9:49 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: "Gun Control" is not evil... |
Tracy S Hamilton |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | We already use it in the world today. We don't want Iran to get nukes. We didn't like it when North Korea die either.
First, where is the line? Is the right to bear arms unlimited? Can I have hand grenades and Stinger missiles? After all, the guvment might be coming for me in jets or helicopters!
Can I own machine guns?
How about 300 shotguns and 50,000 shells?
Is that a collector or a nut?
Very simply, we NEED better gun control. That doesn't mean taking guns away from us or necessarily forbidding us to carry them. It SHOULD mean a waiting period...it should mean a thorough background check, ESPECIALLY for mental/emotional issues.... You get the idea.
But red-meat, rabid NRA'ers think every single attempt to improve our world is a conspiracy.
Yes, it's the PERSON who shoots the gun. All the more reason to take greater care about who gets a gun.
At the same time, it cannot be ignored that no one is killing people with mastadon tusks or nuclear blasts or mustard gas. That at least implies that if you don't have that weapon available to you, you'll not use it when you get really upset.
I don't know the full answer, but it's clear that we don't have the answer thus far. If everyone is armed...then the bad guys have arms also. If not one is allowed to be armed...the bad guys might still have guns.
I do know that the answer does not appear to be simply resisting every call to make gun ownership/possession more difficult for buyers. |
The problem is that this administration thinks gun control is eliminating guns, which, by the way, is not the problem.
If by more gun control laws, they mean that mentally disturbed people should not get them... I am all for that. But what would happen before long is that anyone who wanted a gun would be considered mentally disturbed.
Law abiding citizens should not have to go through stricter regulations.
So we come back around to the core issue. People who do these kinds of things do not usually walk into a gun store and buy guns. They get them on the street, which is not hard to do.
And by the way.... the comment about shotguns and 300 shotguns and 50,000 doesn't make anyone a nut.... that just means you have an opinion.
I have had a shotgun since I was 9 years old.... |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo
Posts: 2716
10/2/15 9:55 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Aaron |
Cojak |
YOu are right, it is a tough call. An 'impossible task' at present.
This same president that wants more (better?) control, himself, picks and chooses the laws the legal arm of government enforces, making laws in many areas a sham.
BAck ground checks are not bad, but neither are they conclusive. The privacy of Dr./Patient comes into play. Few folk advertise a mental problem.
Mass murders are easier with fire arms, but our enemies have proved they can kill and main very well with many weapons home made and bought.
Our country was turned upside down in Boston with pressure cookers.
NO EASY ANSWER, JUST FRUSTRATION BECAUSE NO ONE HAS THE SILVER BULLET. 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24277
10/2/15 10:05 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| I hear you, folks... |
Aaron Scott |
I own guns myself.
But as one person said that my statement just shows I have an opinion, yes, I do. We can all seem to grasp that it's not cool for any individual to own a nuclear warhead. But that's really an opinion too, isn't it? It may be law also, but it is based on opinion.
I don't want to outlaw guns! I am saying, though, that if we didn't have any, we might still see murders, but you no one is going to go into a classroom with a butcher knife and kill 10 people (unless he's extremely fast, "fortunate," etc.)
Very simply, we have more gun based deaths than any First World country. We also have more guns. We also have more crime. So what's the deal? |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
10/2/15 10:14 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: I hear you, folks... |
Tracy S Hamilton |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | I own guns myself.
But as one person said that my statement just shows I have an opinion, yes, I do. We can all seem to grasp that it's not cool for any individual to own a nuclear warhead. But that's really an opinion too, isn't it? It may be law also, but it is based on opinion.
I don't want to outlaw guns! I am saying, though, that if we didn't have any, we might still see murders, but you no one is going to go into a classroom with a butcher knife and kill 10 people (unless he's extremely fast, "fortunate," etc.)
Very simply, we have more gun based deaths than any First World country. We also have more guns. We also have more crime. So what's the deal? |
The problem is outlawing guns doesn't solve anything. That simply means bad guys have guns. I would rather live in the free society that we have than have those rights taken away. And trust me, as we have seen through history, when something is taken away, you will never get it back. |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo
Posts: 2716
10/2/15 10:20 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
In our society there is an honest fear, 'take one away by law you will eventually take another... and another ... until'. An organization or government, seems to work that way.
As a builder I had folks laugh at me for being against HOA, but I have been proven correct in this area. (just as an example of adding 'one more thing) 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24277
10/2/15 10:28 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Eddie Robbins |
Let it begin with the Secret Service and guards at all government buildings.
The "guard" at this school was not allowed to carry a gun. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16509
10/2/15 10:36 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Tracy... |
Aaron Scott |
How is that working for us--this whole, "only outlaws will have guns" thing?
Wouldn't that hold true in other countries that have FAR LESS crime? Wouldn't only their criminals have guns...and yet the crime rate is far less?
Do we have some special case of "meanness" in the U.S. that shows us that, in OUR case, WE have to have guns, even if no one else does?
I call a "do over." Basically, everyone has the right to hunt and defend themselves against crime...but not against a zombie army (i.e., arsenals).
Everyone has the right to guns that are for hunting and self-protection, but not a military-style/grade weapon designed for rapid fire in near-military situations. A shotgun covers just about all contingencies that we are likely to encounter. And if we go beyond "likely," then we're back to questioning why I can't have my own personal nuke.
Everyone (adults) have the right to a gun AFTER a waiting period of several days, a THOROUGH background check, etc. And if you have mental/emotional issues that are found, your request can be declined--or at least you might be prohibited from obtaining anything more than a small caliber, etc. weapon (yes, still deadly, but a fair compromise perhaps).
It IS my opinion, I know. I know some don't agree. But if it was YOUR child that had been shot yesterday, I don't think you would believe that our only solution is to ensure that everyone is properly armed. It would surely include some sort of additional requirements. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
10/2/15 10:46 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Tracy... |
John Jett |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | Wouldn't that hold true in other countries that have FAR LESS crime? |
you completely lost your argument with that statement, game over |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4955
10/2/15 10:59 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Eddie Robbins |
Just read about a shooting in Australia.
Let's say we have a new law that says you can only own one gun per household. Do your, for a minute, think people will turn in their extra guns? Sure, some law abiding citizens would. What about the others? Do your nothing that law would stop any deranged person from carrying out a mass shooting?
So, what law would you propose that would make any difference? |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16509
10/2/15 11:04 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| John Jett, sorry, no. |
Aaron Scott |
Consider the argument:
The claim is that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Well, one would think that, that being the case, then those countries where guns are not allowed would be wracked with crime after crime after crime. After all, the outlaws have GUNS! And with that firepower, they can pretty much do whatever they want.
But instead, we find that countries that do not permit guns (we're talking advanced nations here) have a MUCH BETTER CRIME RATE than America. That is just the opposite of what we would expect, right? I mean, if you don't have a gun, there is apparently far less deterrent when it comes to crime. If only criminals have guns, then there is even more motivation for them to create guns, since they will be the only armed person in such a situation.
Instead, it's just the opposite for us. We have more guns than any other nation...yet we have far more crime, too. Explain your take on it. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
10/2/15 11:06 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
But correlation does not equal causation. Is their crime rate lower because of gun control or because of other reasons?
| Quote: | | But instead, we find that countries that do not permit guns (we're talking advanced nations here) have a MUCH BETTER CRIME RATE than America. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
10/2/15 11:35 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Nick Park |
| bonnie knox wrote: | But correlation does not equal causation. Is their crime rate lower because of gun control or because of other reasons?
| Quote: | | But instead, we find that countries that do not permit guns (we're talking advanced nations here) have a MUCH BETTER CRIME RATE than America. |
|
Some of it is undoubtedly for other reasons. Internationally, the biggest correlation is between poverty and murder. Nations in Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean and the nations surrounding Russia all have higher murder rates than the US. European countries and those in Oceania (such as Australia and New Zealand) generally have murder rates much lower than the US.
But the US is a real statistical outlier because it is a prosperous nation with a murder rate that is five times that of must other developed nations.
_________________
Senior Pastor, Solid Rock Church, Drogheda
National Overseer, Church of God, Ireland
Executive Director, Evangelical Alliance Ireland
http://eaiseanchai.wordpress.com/ |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1021
10/2/15 11:47 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Tracy... |
skinnybishop |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | How is that working for us--this whole, "only outlaws will have guns" thing?
Wouldn't that hold true in other countries that have FAR LESS crime? Wouldn't only their criminals have guns...and yet the crime rate is far less?
Do we have some special case of "meanness" in the U.S. that shows us that, in OUR case, WE have to have guns, even if no one else does?
I call a "do over." Basically, everyone has the right to hunt and defend themselves against crime...but not against a zombie army (i.e., arsenals).
Everyone has the right to guns that are for hunting and self-protection, but not a military-style/grade weapon designed for rapid fire in near-military situations. A shotgun covers just about all contingencies that we are likely to encounter. And if we go beyond "likely," then we're back to questioning why I can't have my own personal nuke.
Everyone (adults) have the right to a gun AFTER a waiting period of several days, a THOROUGH background check, etc. And if you have mental/emotional issues that are found, your request can be declined--or at least you might be prohibited from obtaining anything more than a small caliber, etc. weapon (yes, still deadly, but a fair compromise perhaps).
It IS my opinion, I know. I know some don't agree. But if it was YOUR child that had been shot yesterday, I don't think you would believe that our only solution is to ensure that everyone is properly armed. It would surely include some sort of additional requirements. |
Aaron, you are misinformed about a number of things on this issue....beginning with the assumption that "rapid fire military weapons" are available to the public.
Next, what do you think a waiting period is going to accomplish? So, a potential shooter can't commit a murder today. SO what? He waits the prescribed period and buys the gun.
Finally, you say people with emotinal issues should only be allowed to have small caliber weapons. Great. Give that person a Ruger 10/22 with a 30 round magazine and watch how much damage he can do. You mention shotguns....do you know how much damage a 12 gauge semi-automatic weapon can do, when loaded with 00 buckshot?
You aren't getting it and I'm not trying to be rude. If a person wants a gun....he can get a gun.
_________________
Eddie Wiggins |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1055
10/2/15 11:57 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Tracy... |
skinnybishop |
| skinnybishop wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | How is that working for us--this whole, "only outlaws will have guns" thing?
Wouldn't that hold true in other countries that have FAR LESS crime? Wouldn't only their criminals have guns...and yet the crime rate is far less?
Do we have some special case of "meanness" in the U.S. that shows us that, in OUR case, WE have to have guns, even if no one else does?
I call a "do over." Basically, everyone has the right to hunt and defend themselves against crime...but not against a zombie army (i.e., arsenals).
Everyone has the right to guns that are for hunting and self-protection, but not a military-style/grade weapon designed for rapid fire in near-military situations. A shotgun covers just about all contingencies that we are likely to encounter. And if we go beyond "likely," then we're back to questioning why I can't have my own personal nuke.
Everyone (adults) have the right to a gun AFTER a waiting period of several days, a THOROUGH background check, etc. And if you have mental/emotional issues that are found, your request can be declined--or at least you might be prohibited from obtaining anything more than a small caliber, etc. weapon (yes, still deadly, but a fair compromise perhaps).
It IS my opinion, I know. I know some don't agree. But if it was YOUR child that had been shot yesterday, I don't think you would believe that our only solution is to ensure that everyone is properly armed. It would surely include some sort of additional requirements. |
Aaron, you are misinformed about a number of things on this issue....beginning with the assumption that "rapid fire military weapons" are available to the public.
Next, what do you think a waiting period is going to accomplish? So, a potential shooter can't commit a murder today. SO what? He waits the prescribed period and buys the gun.
Finally, you say people with emotinal issues should only be allowed to have small caliber weapons. Great. Give that person a Ruger 10/22 with a 30 round magazine and watch how much damage he can do. You mention shotguns....do you know how much damage a 12 gauge semi-automatic weapon can do, when loaded with 00 buckshot?
You aren't getting it and I'm not trying to be rude. If a person wants a gun....he can get a gun. |
PS..are you aware that Oregon had JUST strengthened its gun laws?
_________________
Eddie Wiggins |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1055
10/2/15 12:00 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | But the US is a real statistical outlier because it is a prosperous nation with a murder rate that is five times that of must other developed nations. |
And the rate varies considerably from certain cities (where it is extremely high) to the rest of the country. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
10/2/15 12:01 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
