47% of households own gun

[Pia]

^This. Yes, gun ownership is a right but it is obviously a deadly weapon. Purchasing that should come with required training or proof thereof (maybe even a psych evaluation)...not just a permit.

It's not much of a right then, is it?

 

[Nebor]

Why are we going to need to collect them someday?

At some point we'll realize, as most other Western countries have, that the free flow of deadly weapons to the general populace is a detriment to all, and jeopardizes the state's monopoly on the use of force.

 

[Darwin333]

I know, but I'm quite certain that where I live it's less than half, and it's been that way everywhere I've lived (which is a lot of places). In order to aggregate out to 47% it has to be over 50% in some significant area.

Most people aren't gun nuts who go around bragging about their firearms. In fact, a lot of people would prefer that you didn't know they had a firearm in their house. Until Katrina hit I don't recall very many people, even relatively close friends, knowing I had any guns. It just didn't come up in conversation.

 

[Darwin333]

At some point we'll realize, as most other Western countries have, that the free flow of deadly weapons to the general populace is a detriment to all, and jeopardizes the state's monopoly on the use of force.

Thankfully the Founding Fathers were smarter than you because that is EXACTLY why we have the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Darwin333]

^This. Yes, gun ownership is a right but it is obviously a deadly weapon. Purchasing that should come with required training or proof thereof (maybe even a psych evaluation)...not just a permit.

Voting can cause just as much death and hardship. Should that "right" come with required training and psych evaluations, at the cost of the voter (such as current gun permits/training)?

Can't afford the training and psych eval? Sorry, no vote.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Voting can cause just as much death and hardship. Should that "right" come with required training and psych evaluations, at the cost of the voter (such as current gun permits/training)?

Can't afford the training and psych eval? Sorry, no vote.

I do not support making training and a psych evaluation mandatory to buy guns, but your argument is absurd.

One lone schizophrenic who goes off his meds and votes for Chuck E. Cheese for Alderman (or, as happened here in the 2008 Franken/Coleman election, votes for "Lizard People" for United States Senator) does no significant harm, much less "death and hardship." Put a gun in the same person's hands and he can kill dozens in a Virginia Tech-type mass shooting.

 

[MrColin]

Gun facts for the Libertarian:
http://www.rmgo.org/images/GunFacts4-2-Press.pdf

The goal of Gun Facts is to provide a quick reference guide for civil libertarians on gun control
issues. Use Gun Facts when composing arguments for debates, letters to editors, email to your
representatives, and statements to the media.
The issue Gun Facts addresses is the lack of intellectual honesty by gun control advocates. Over
many decades they have presented information to the media and the public that is at best
inaccurate, and at worst fraudulent. Gun Facts is dedicated to debunking gun control myths and
providing citable evidence.
Common gun control myths are listed in the pages that follow. For each myth, one or more facts
are presented to refute the gun control claim, and the source of the information is fully cited.

Cool resource! I'm with the left on most issues but the second amendment ain't one of them. I've also come to the sad conclusion that facts and reasoning don't change anyone's opinions. Emotional appeals can, sometimes.

 

[cwjerome]

Cool resource! I'm with the left on most issues but the second amendment ain't one of them. I've also come to the sad conclusion that facts and reasoning don't change anyone's opinions. Emotional appeals can, sometimes.

Your avatar looks like the "nice" zombie in Day of the Dead. Just thought I'd say.

 

[irishScott]

Cool resource! I'm with the left on most issues but the second amendment ain't one of them. I've also come to the sad conclusion that facts and reasoning don't change anyone's opinions. Emotional appeals can, sometimes.

I'd say the two aren't entirely separate. I like to use the analogy of digestible food. The facts are the raw meat. An extreme minority will eat them and be able to operate on that alone. The emotional appeal is the cooking process, and it can go all over the spectrum. But one way or another it's required to have mass amounts of people consume the facts.

 

[lord_emperor]

I do not support making training and a psych evaluation mandatory to buy guns, but your argument is absurd.

One lone schizophrenic who goes off his meds and votes for Chuck E. Cheese for Alderman (or, as happened here in the 2008 Franken/Coleman election, votes for "Lizard People" for United States Senator) does no significant harm, much less "death and hardship." Put a gun in the same person's hands and he can kill dozens in a Virginia Tech-type mass shooting.

Yup. Of course if he's really mad & crazy enough he can obtain a gun illegally regardless. Now if the students and faculty were armed they'd have some security from gun-wielding crazy dudes, legal gun owner or not.

 

[irishScott]

Yup. Of course if he's really mad & crazy enough he can obtain a gun illegally regardless. Now if the students and faculty were armed they'd have some security from gun-wielding crazy dudes, legal gun owner or not.

And the sad thing is, the primary argument against this (that I've heard) is that police wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the shooter and students defending themselves.

 

[spidey07]

And the sad thing is, the primary argument against this (that I've heard) is that police wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the shooter and students defending themselves.

"Officer I am a legal concealed carry owner and will keep my weapon at low and ready and obey any commands you give"

 

[sm625]

As I just said in the other thread, how do you defeat an army who is 47% armed and on their own turf? Simple. You put all your money into foundations, think tanks, and media conglomerates. You use the media to build prestige for the foundations and the think tanks. Then you use those foundations and think tanks as a conduit for setting legislative policy. After a couple decades every one in government is a part of groups like the CFR. They write every kind of regulation they can think of. They bankroll environmental front groups to help push that agenda further. They give every incentive to offshore. They make it impossible to create jobs here and impossible to compete, unless you are a solyndra, ie a chosen entity gifted with taxpayer funds probably done as a political favor.

They have coldly and calculatingly eviscerated the wealth of america. They could care less if we have guns because we will trade the guns for food one day soon.

 

[irishScott]

"Officer I am a legal concealed carry owner and will keep my weapon at low and ready and obey any commands you give"

That and given the style that most of these shootings have had I would hope an officer could tell the difference between the guy wearing all black with multiple weapons going crazy and the guy in khakis/jeans and a polo with a little .380 shitting himself behind cover.

 

[senseamp]

Next shooter could wear khakis and a polo and use a .380

 

[irishScott]

Next shooter could wear khakis and a polo and use a .380

Then Spidey's argument comes into play. The ones not shooting at/obeying the cops are the good guys. Plus if students were armed the situation may very well be resolved by the time any police could get close.

Also I would laugh at the person trying a VT style school shooting with a Reuger LCP or similar:

Yeah, good luck gunning down the masses with that.

 

[Darwin333]

I do not support making training and a psych evaluation mandatory to buy guns, but your argument is absurd.

One lone schizophrenic who goes off his meds and votes for Chuck E. Cheese for Alderman (or, as happened here in the 2008 Franken/Coleman election, votes for "Lizard People" for United States Senator) does no significant harm, much less "death and hardship." Put a gun in the same person's hands and he can kill dozens in a Virginia Tech-type mass shooting.

Voting can mean the difference between going to war, staying at war, or none of the above. Do you think we would have invaded Iraq had GWB not been president?

Nothing absurd about the argument at all.

 

[senseamp]

Then Spidey's argument comes into play. The ones not shooting at/obeying the cops are the good guys. Plus if students were armed the situation may very well be resolved by the time any police could get close.

Also I would laugh at the person trying a VT style school shooting with a Reuger LCP or similar:

Yeah, good luck gunning down the masses with that.

So why do you bring up khakis and polos? You think officer is going to give a crap about that?
Anyways, go ahead, bring more guns on campuses, just do it in Virginia, not here in California.
And good luck gunning down an armed gunman with that.

 

[Darwin333]

"Officer I am a legal concealed carry owner and will keep my weapon at low and ready and obey any commands you give"

bullshit. If you are in a "big" shootout and the situation is still chaotic you better damn well be dropping your gun and putting your hands on your head the moment you see a badge or you will be well ventilated before those words ever come out of your mouth.

 

[Darwin333]

So why do you bring up khakis and polos? You think officer is going to give a crap about that?
Anyways, go ahead, bring more guns on campuses, just do it in Virginia, not here in California.
And good luck gunning down an armed gunman with that.

Would it be scarier if it was bigger? Don't get me wrong, I'll take my subcompact .40 over that any day but that .380 will get the job done if you know how to use it.

 

[senseamp]

"Officer, I got khakis and a Polo shirt. Nothing to see here, move along"

 

[senseamp]

Would it be scarier if it was bigger? Don't get me wrong, I'll take my subcompact .40 over that any day but that .380 will get the job done if you know how to use it.

If it can kill an armed gunman, it can kill a cop.

 

[irishScott]

So why do you bring up khakis and polos? You think officer is going to give a crap about that?
Anyways, go ahead, bring more guns on campuses, just do it in Virginia, not here in California.
And good luck gunning down an armed gunman with that.

Yes, because a cop trying to ID a threat in the heat of the moment isn't going to focus on who "looks" good or not at all. Appearance matters. Just because it's not in police procedure doesn't mean that it doesn't.

And actually people have gunned down plenty of armed gunmen with LCPs. It's one of the best-selling guns of all time. At close range it will definitely do the job. It's just limited by ammo capacity and small caliber, and thus isn't going to be easily killing massive amounts of people.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

good luck gunning down an armed gunman with that.

Using HydraShok rounds that .380 auto can be quite deadly.

http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/handgun.aspx?id=399

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

And the sad thing is, the primary argument against this (that I've heard) is that police wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the shooter and students defending themselves.

Well in reality the cops won't have to make that determination. They people that legally have a gun will take care of the problem then and there. Why? Because when seconds count, the cops are minutes away.

Bad guy will be dead on the ground, the person that shot him defending themself and others will tell the cops what happened when they get there.