- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 9,251
- Reaction score
- 7,297
I understand and appreciate that there are pretty stringent requirements for owning something like an AK-47, I'm just mystified as to why anyone would think they'd need one.
Gun Control Compromise
- Thread starter Zoombie
- Start date
- Status
I understand and appreciate that there are pretty stringent requirements for owning something like an AK-47, I'm just mystified as to why anyone would think they'd need one.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2010
- Messages
- 3,057
- Reaction score
- 574
- Location
- The Swamplands
- Website
- www.galehaut.com
And when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Why would you wish to completely abdicate your own ability to defend yourself? Why wait and hope you might live long enough for the police to arrive when you could instead put up deadly resistance?
America is a huge place. It's neigh on impossible for most cops to be less than 5 minutes away from most of the population. Why be at the mercy of that delay?
Martin Luther King showed how to successfully battle a democratic government. It's not with guns.
Why does anyone think they need a 600hp Mercedes, a 7000 square foot house, or more than one computer? Hell, I don't know...
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2010
- Messages
- 3,057
- Reaction score
- 574
- Location
- The Swamplands
- Website
- www.galehaut.com
Probably not. I took it apart last night to clean it and install new grips. I didn't see a brain anywhere. A barrel, a trigger, a grip, and a few other parts, but no brain.
I live in Canada. It's a much bigger country with the police further away than you. Most here don't keep guns for protection unless they are out hiking or hunting animals. I don't keep a gun. My dad gave up his guns once he no longer had coyotes to chase away (he lived on a farm.)
The situation you describe actually works against your argument.
If I know it's highly unlikely the man has a gun? I jump at him and try to defend that woman.
If I know he might have a gun... that's where I start having second thoughts.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 9,251
- Reaction score
- 7,297
Fashion statement?
My gun is bigger than your gun?
I'm just mystified as to why they should be available to civilians at all, regardless of ticking all the Federal boxes.
As someone who is a democrat, who has owned a gun, who grew up with guns. I'm 100% on board with limiting certain types of guns. I'm going to borrow this from a user named "Gabrielle Cynique" on Gawker:
I see something like this and I get it. I get that we can limit some of this. I also get that people are going to use the "well criminals will still get these guns and use them" argument and raise you a, "some might, but many will not."
I'd be curious to know if any of these shooters were military/ex-military or are/were a part of law enforcement. If not, then there's one place to begin. Perhaps the above mentioned should be the only ones allowed the super big guns. I don't know. I'm just throwing ideas out there.
I also agree with Wendig in that people should be educated when it comes to guns. That said, will education instill respect? I don't know, but it's worth looking into.
I'm down with metal detectors in schools. Unfortunately, we all know how bad funding for education is already. I can't imagine how much this would cost, but again, I don't know.
I have to ask the question of whether or not the "founders" were thinking of the type of weaponry we have today when they wrote their words. Could they have possibly foreseen this? When do we let go of the antiquated and take accountability for modern technology? Where is that line?
Anyway, I appreciate this thread, and I appreciate everyone who is trying (some desperately) to find common ground. My ideas might be shit, but dammit, I'm trying. I hope others continue to do the same.
I see something like this and I get it. I get that we can limit some of this. I also get that people are going to use the "well criminals will still get these guns and use them" argument and raise you a, "some might, but many will not."
I'd be curious to know if any of these shooters were military/ex-military or are/were a part of law enforcement. If not, then there's one place to begin. Perhaps the above mentioned should be the only ones allowed the super big guns. I don't know. I'm just throwing ideas out there.
I also agree with Wendig in that people should be educated when it comes to guns. That said, will education instill respect? I don't know, but it's worth looking into.
I'm down with metal detectors in schools. Unfortunately, we all know how bad funding for education is already. I can't imagine how much this would cost, but again, I don't know.
I have to ask the question of whether or not the "founders" were thinking of the type of weaponry we have today when they wrote their words. Could they have possibly foreseen this? When do we let go of the antiquated and take accountability for modern technology? Where is that line?
Anyway, I appreciate this thread, and I appreciate everyone who is trying (some desperately) to find common ground. My ideas might be shit, but dammit, I'm trying. I hope others continue to do the same.
I think my snarky comment perfectly fit with the snarky comment I responded to.
By the way, what sort of nasty name should I call you? Or would that mean I was suddenly in the wrong again?
I'm mystified as to why someone would brag about his .45 one day after the terrible tragedy. It literally makes me sick to the stomach. Maybe you'll continue and tell us about the hard-on you had while assembling your toy.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2010
- Messages
- 3,057
- Reaction score
- 574
- Location
- The Swamplands
- Website
- www.galehaut.com
I think my snarky comment perfectly fit with the snarky comment I responded to.
By the way, what sort of nasty name should I call you? Or would that mean I was suddenly in the wrong again?
Fortunately, I won't have to hear what you have to say ever again. Welcome to my ignore list.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 9,251
- Reaction score
- 7,297
Also, the Jewish reaction within those who chose to remain in the areas affected were to push guns away from ubiquity.
You also don't have the crime problem we do.
There are quite a number that are completely off limits. Nothing bigger than .50 caliber (save shotguns), that sort of thing.
But since these aren't used in crime, what's the problem with them?
Doesn't work. Prosecutes naturally push the envelope on certain high profile cases.
They gave it a hell of a try, even though they were poorly armed and supplied. Some even managed to make crude zip guns which they used to kill guards, allowing them to steal the guards' arms for themselves.
Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
It's not much of a stretch to believe that a few thousand FP-45 Liberators dropped into the ghetto could have made a tremendous difference. Unfortunately the OSS preferred to maintain centralized control over the resistance, so the help they sorely needed never arrived.
Not all history is included in the history books they use in government school.
Ever explored as to why that may be?
Because prosecutors have the final say?
And I'm the troll...
I wasn't bragging. Of course, you probably have difficulty understanding something like that. Most who lack social skills can understand any perspective save their own.
Cops have guns too... should we ban them?
- Status