What is Gun Control Really About?

15_50 wrote:

Uncle Samson wrote:

"Definitely not" is an opinion that is based on nothing.

It's one person saying what they think, not even saying why they think it. That is your right, but it is of little value, and of even less value in terms of making wise decisions after examining all the facts, history and potential outcomes.

Lolz... nearly everything you have written in this entire thread is opinion. If you are really such a critical thinker than you should know that.

I have listed fact after fact, statistic after statistic, historical truth after historical truth. If you had read the thread in its entirety you would know that. Meanwhile, the anti-gun people, such as yourself, continue to drop insults, one-liners, distractions, and cannot even answer the most basic and important questions. It continues to be emotion and parroting of what the sensationalized media and the left feed you.

NEngrun9 wrote:

Uncle Samson wrote:

You are being manipulated. You are responding emotionally as you are expected to do. It works universally and has throughout history. Humans are the same as they ever have been. Fear is an amazing motivator and an incredible tool to get people to do what you want. It has been the top tool for manipulation forever.

Right wing political radio is extremely effective with right wingers for this very reason. It triggers listeners' brain fear centers. Right wingers have larger fear centers than centrists and left wingers.

Both sides use fear. It's an effective tool to get people to do what you want. I encourage everyone, from both sides, and every side, to do their best to tamp down emotion and to fully educate themselves on subjects of importance, with open minds and logic.

As for your last sentence, its back to insult and labeling because you cannot debate this issue on facts and logic. It's a stupid statement meant only to try to undermine those you disagree with so you don't have to consider their view. It's a religious statement, that allows you to shut your brain off.

It's also easily seen to be wrong. Covid allowed us to see how each side responds to fear. The sensationalization of guns is all based on fear, and not the statistics, facts, backgrounds, histories. It's simply an emotional reaction, specifically of fear.

It is sad that you cannot debate, but must find some excuse to shut your mind off.

But more than an insult, your statement is disgusting and very dangerous. You label and insult in this elitist way, that is basically claiming that you and those that think like you are genetically superior. You are saying Conservatives are inferior or have a disorder. t sounds a lot like the philosophy of Adolf Hitler, who used genetic superiority to destroy Europe and murder millions.

Do you even think about the things you say, or do you really believe this?

39707 deaths too much!!!!!!

control weapons as much as possible!!!!!

Uncle Samson wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

This is what the 2nd Amendment gives you.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/16/us/indianapolis-shooting-fedex-facility/index.html

The 5th mass shooting in as many weeks.

It's interesting that Biden gets in office, with a very strong gun control philosophy, and suddenly in less than two months, there are all these "mass shootings".

You are being manipulated. You are responding emotionally as you are expected to do. It works universally and has throughout history. Humans are the same as they ever have been. Fear is an amazing motivator and an incredible tool to get people to do what you want. It has been the top tool for manipulation forever.

Speaking there, as one who has been manipulated - by the gun lobby. You are emotionally attached to your fictional belief that your guns are necessary to your freedom when all they achieve is the highest rate of gun homicide in the Western world.

The were 80 mass shootings in the 4 years before Biden was elected. Your arguments are empty cr*p.

Bill C. wrote:

39707 deaths too much!!!!!!

control weapons as much as possible!!!!!

38800 deaths from cars. Is that too much? 1.2 million dead from cancer and heart disease. Is that too much? We really can't cure anything with our vast resources and technology?

Have you read this whole thread? Do you understand the ramifications of your simple statement if it is ever attempted?

How many deaths are you willing to accept to try to take away guns from Americans? Are you willing to have a civil war, and all that means (possibly millions dead, economic shambles, foreign intervention, government control, a split of states), in order to take away guns from Americans? It's important that you think about what is likely to happen in various scenarios before you make and support such a simple statement.

Once again, it's all just emotional cries. No logic, no thought, no examination of facts, no review of historical truth, no thinking through all the unintended consequences. Just simple emotional statements. You even used a bunch of exclamation marks to show just how much emotion you are exerting here.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Uncle Samson wrote:

It's interesting that Biden gets in office, with a very strong gun control philosophy, and suddenly in less than two months, there are all these "mass shootings".

You are being manipulated. You are responding emotionally as you are expected to do. It works universally and has throughout history. Humans are the same as they ever have been. Fear is an amazing motivator and an incredible tool to get people to do what you want. It has been the top tool for manipulation forever.

Speaking there, as one who has been manipulated - by the gun lobby. You are emotionally attached to your fictional belief that your guns are necessary to your freedom when all they achieve is the highest rate of gun homicide in the Western world.

The were 80 mass shootings in the 4 years before Biden was elected. Your arguments are empty cr*p.

Have you been manipulated by the gun lobby? How so?

Your statement about emotion is the equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I". I have given facts and real examples from history showing the importance of having the ability to defend freedom. I and others have explained the reason the second amendment exists. The founding fathers certainly saw the right to bear arms as essential to protecting liberty. Again, it is how this country even exists at all.

The response continues to be emotion, insult, distract, deflect, use simple meaningless unbacked statements and opinions.

Whether there were more, or as many, "mass shootings" in the 4 years before Biden was elected or not, there sure seem to have been a lot in the just two months of Biden's presidency. And the reporting on them is more dramatic right now, logically because the press is predominantly leftist, has a clear agenda, understands it is a powerful propaganda machine, and is exerting that power by setting the narrative, telling lies, exaggerating and creating hysteria. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

But I will go back to a question I have asked repeatedly without an answer. How do you protect your freedom and block tyranny, without the second amendment? History shows us what people with unchecked power do. The current world shows us what people with unchecked power do. The evidence is all around us, past and present.

The only answer I have gotten has been, "well, the government is too powerful anyway, so having guns doesn't stop the government from exerting its power and abusing the people if it decided to." Which I have given facts and information that suggests that is not true.

Nobody has answered with "freedom, without the ability to defend it with the second amendment, is guaranteed to be protected still because....."

You can't answer it logically. There is no protection against a tyrannical government if the people don't have the ability to defend their freedom. History and an understanding of human nature prove this.

Uncle Samson wrote:

How many people die in car accidents each year? About as many as gun deaths if I remember my own numbers at the start of this thread. Why is that any more acceptable? Why do we allow people to drive cars, when so many people die in car accidents?

Do we have to get a government issued license to drive a car?

Do we have to pass tests to get that license?

Do we have to renew that license every several years?

Do we have to register our privately owned automobiles with the government?

Are we required have to purchase liability insurance?

If we removed all the restrictions above, would there be more fatal traffic accidents?

Only uncle Samson would equate accidental car deaths with intentional gun murders/suicide.

Not my usual HN wrote:

Uncle Samson wrote:

How many people die in car accidents each year? About as many as gun deaths if I remember my own numbers at the start of this thread. Why is that any more acceptable? Why do we allow people to drive cars, when so many people die in car accidents?

Do we have to get a government issued license to drive a car?

Do we have to pass tests to get that license?

Do we have to renew that license every several years?

Do we have to register our privately owned automobiles with the government?

Are we required have to purchase liability insurance?

If we removed all the restrictions above, would there be more fatal traffic accidents?

Wow. Samson gets destroyed.

Not my usual HN wrote:

Uncle Samson wrote:

How many people die in car accidents each year? About as many as gun deaths if I remember my own numbers at the start of this thread. Why is that any more acceptable? Why do we allow people to drive cars, when so many people die in car accidents?

Do we have to get a government issued license to drive a car?

Do we have to pass tests to get that license?

Do we have to renew that license every several years?

Do we have to register our privately owned automobiles with the government?

Are we required have to purchase liability insurance?

If we removed all the restrictions above, would there be more fatal traffic accidents?

So you are saying that cars are far more dangerous than guns, and only through regulation and control have we reduced auto accident deaths to the level of guns.

There is nothing in the constitution ensuring and protecting the right to keep and use an automobile. An automobile was not essential in the creation of the United States, nor is it in any way ensuring our freedoms are protected. Further, automobile usage costs the public. We have to build and maintain roads and other infrastructure at great public cost. And automobiles are used in public everywhere, guns typically are not. So there are some huge differences here.

That being said, I personally (and I may be in the minority in terms of gun rights people), think some of the things you listed are reasonable and intelligent. I believe I have said something to this effect previously in this thread.

I think using, much less owning, a firearm is a very serious thing. Once you pull the trigger, intentionally or unintentionally, the bullet is going where it is pointed and you cannot get it back. This is a very serious and huge responsibility. So I believe anyone that uses, much less owns a firearm should be required to get official training and pass a test. Or they should have to prove they have received full military or police training in firearms. To me, this is a no brainer and would at least have a positive impact on accidental deaths.

I think giving access to your own firearms to those underage (without supervision) or to those mentally unstable should be a punishable crime. Just as I think training should be mandatory, I think gun owners should be held responsible for where their firearms are and who has access. Theft should be an exemption, since the gunowner has no control over that. But if 19-year old son Jimmy uses Dad's gun to commit a crime, because dad gave him full and un-supervised access to the firearm, then dad should be held nearly equally responsible. Again, if Jimmy breaks open the gun safe, that is different, but if dad just trusts Jimmy or just leaves the gun laying around the house, and Jimmy does something horrible, dad should be held accountable.

I don't believe firearm owners should be charged $ by the government to be able to own a firearm. First, that restricts ownership to upper class and takes away the right from lower income, or forces them to do something illegal that shouldn't be illegal. The government charges for automobiles because they are using public infrastructure to operate, which costs massive taxpayer money. They also pollute. As mentioned, cars are not a constitutional right. And the government wants to make money anyway. Since they are not a constitutionally guaranteed right, this is acceptable. The Second Amendment is a constitutional right. It is improper and an abuse of your right to have to pay the government for that right, or for the government to do things that limit that right for some or all, especially based on income.

I also believe far more should be done for mental health in this country. We have an epidemic. The mass shootings are not normal citizens. They are almost always people with significant mental health issues. If you increase identification and help for mental health issues, which are being seen not just in shootings, but in suicides, in other violence, in quality of life, in relationships, etc., that alone should make a positive impact on shootings, and for the quality and enjoyment of life for so many.

In most of these shootings the people around the shooter will say they saw problems, warmings, concerns. Sometimes they don't report anything, which is horrible. Sometimes they report to police, and nothing is done. So there is negligence and a broken system that is a contributing factor. Why aren't people stepping up? Why isn't law enforcement doing more when people do? How do we fix this?

I am for universal background checks, which already is the law, with a very small exception that can easily be fixed. Sometimes the background checks don't catch a red flag. So I would be in support of reevaluating how background checks work, and ensuring that they are as effective as they possibly can be while protecting people's rights and privacy. Nothing in the world is failsafe though, so it is unreasonable to expect that. However, where we can improve we should.

I am not for firearm registration. It serves no purpose other than to be able to potentially abuse the rights of the citizens. It would not stop any shooting. It just gives power to the government in ways that are in opposition to the reason for the second amendment. I do believe it is a violation of our constitutional rights. Again, how would gun registration positively impact gun violence?

I am open to other, logical, thoughtful, effective ways of reducing gun violence while fully preserving our second amendment rights.

Making decisions on intense emotion almost completely guarantees bad decisions. It doesn't have to be "guns or no guns". Let's find ways to not reduce or threaten the second amendment now or in the future, while being smart and making a positive impact on gun violence and death.

I also think the current gun laws should be fully enforced. They aren't, which makes adding new gun laws kinda silly. Enforce what is already law, then figure out what, if anything, needs to be added.

The media is not as left wing as you believe. Especially if you account for all forms of media including political radio, which is predominantly right wing.

Legitimate media may lean slightly to the left but is certainly not biased left. Legitimate journalism is accurate, fact checked and adheres to the WWWWHW formula.

Before we go on, legitimate journalism does NOT include Fox News, which is not news, Newsmax, which is far from accurate, Brietbart, American, Trump HQ, or any of the others. They are propaganda, pure and simple.

Legitimate journalism also does not include CNN-USA or MSNBC. Although fact checked, they are almost entirely opinion and opinion is NOT news, it is opinion.

Now, WWWWHW, or who, what, when, where, how, and why. These are the elements of a news story. The first four are easy. It is the last two that are problematical. It is literally impossible to state them without using language that leans in some form toward bias, however slight.

Simple answer - NO the legitimate press is NOT biased to the left but in some cases the use of language can make it seem that way.

Please, name for me ONE individual who either owns or controls a major media empire in the US who is an avowed lefty.

Easy, right? Since all these lefties are pushing the entire mainstream media left, right?

Then why does no one ever answer it? I can easily give you a 5-to-1 offer, I’ll name 5 old white conservatives who fit that bill for every liberal you bring me.

Here are the only two guesses I ever get, and their “media empire status”: Ted Turner divested FOUR DECADES ago. George Soros owns four radio stations…. in South America.

Even CNN & MSNBC are controlled by Republicans - CNN is owned by Warner Media, whose head, John Stankey, supports Republican candidates. Philip T. "Phil" Griffin, who runs MSNBC, lists his “hero” as Roger Ailes, noted Fox News head honcho and all-around conservative douchebag.

Is it that the media is in no way as left-slanted as legend has it or is it that somehow these media outlets, owned and controlled by conservatives, somehow got bullied into presenting the opposite viewpoint of what their owners believe?

Uncle Samson wrote:

But I will go back to a question I have asked repeatedly without an answer. How do you protect your freedom and block tyranny, without the second amendment? History shows us what people with unchecked power do. The current world shows us what people with unchecked power do. The evidence is all around us, past and present.

.

actually this has been answered a few times. The will of the people who in turn can use technology, improvised weapons, even cars. Guns? That's 20th century thinking. You can't possibly so foolish as to put all of your faith in something as an outdated hunk of metal. Guns don't magically give people the strength to stand up to tyranny (they can some be a small part of a larger strategy) but c'mon. Tyrannty isn't a zombie that can only be taken out with a bullet.

Guns are simply irrelevant in today's world as a means of keep people free. Sure some people like to shoot, them collect them. jerk off to them....whatever. I have no little problem with that if they are responsible. This isn't 1776 anymore. This isn't even 1950. History is history, the world changes.

Ridiculous post and just shows that a little intelligence is dangerous and cannot replace a common sense

Change to UK gun laws and you've got rid of 90% of those gun deaths.

No untrained civilian should be allowed to carry a weapon. If course it would probably take a century to change the redneck attitudes where Americans think they are living in a Clint Eastwood western. If a criminal has a gun on you they are not going to give you s couple of minutes for you to get sorted and pull yours out.

Anyway I'm wasting my time and just glad I'm living in a reasonably civilised country.

But I will go back to a question I have asked repeatedly without an answer. How do you protect your freedom and block tyranny, without the second amendment? (quote)

It has already been answered. Other democracies rely on elections and the rule of law to prevent tyranny, not an armed citizenry. How many times since the 2nd Amendment was introduced have Americans required to mount an uprising against their own government? Oh, yeah - there was January 6. That's called an insurrection.

In the meantime more Americans die from gun violence than in any other Western country.

Your belief that guns are your insurance against autocratic government is ludicrous. Indeed, if civilians rose against the government, how do you think they would fare against the massive weaponry of the state? As well as the citizens of Myanmar?

Uncle Samson wrote:

So you are saying that cars are far more dangerous than guns, and only through regulation and control have we reduced auto accident deaths to the level of guns.

When somebody uses a car for its purpose there's a chance of death, but the chance is far lower than the chance of death when someone uses a gun for its purpose. So no, cars are not more dangerous.

If somebody near me used their car with the intention of travelling to point B, I would not consider it dangerous. If somebody near me used their weapon with the intention of shooting, I would find situation more dangerous.

If guns are a safeguard against government tyranny why is it they are mostly used to kill private citizens? If they were to be used against government how would that be different from any other act of terrorism (like the Oklahoma bomber)? The 2nd Amendment is an 18th century anachronism.

Armstronglivs wrote:

But I will go back to a question I have asked repeatedly without an answer. How do you protect your freedom and block tyranny, without the second amendment? (quote)

It has already been answered. Other democracies rely on elections and the rule of law to prevent tyranny, not an armed citizenry. How many times since the 2nd Amendment was introduced have Americans required to mount an uprising against their own government? Oh, yeah - there was January 6. That's called an insurrection.

In the meantime more Americans die from gun violence than in any other Western country.

Your belief that guns are your insurance against autocratic government is ludicrous. Indeed, if civilians rose against the government, how do you think they would fare against the massive weaponry of the state? As well as the citizens of Myanmar?

I know I shouldn't respond at this point, since I already have answered these things multiple times in this thread and you either haven't read the thread or you are not comprehending.

But, what the heck. Other democracies rely on elections. That's great. That's not my question. My question is, how would you stop the government from betraying our freedom without the ability to use force? An election is not a safeguard if the government decides to betray the people. Let's say martial law was instituted across the United States and the government in power basically took all power. What good is an election. That's like being robbed at gunpoint and saying "please stop." Not likely to do any good.

I would respect you more if you just came out and said you are willing to risk freedom to get rid of guns. That you are willing to take the chance that it will all work out. Or that you think it would be better to live in a country without freedom, than to live in a country with guns. But to pretend that the people have any power without the ability to physically defend themselves is silly.

Asking "How many times since the 2nd Amendment was introduced have Americans required to mount an uprising against their own government?" is also silly. The very fact that we have a second amendment helps to dramatically reduce the chance that we ever have to fight our own government. That is half the point of the second amendment.

The January 6th "insurrection" was nothing of the sort. There was no reason to "rise up against the government". Nor was there really any organization, plan or anything else. For the most part it was some morons who got carried away and felt empowered by a very weak leader. Then both that leader and the leadership in the congress/WADC didn't do what they needed to in order to stop it early. It's not even close to an uprising, or a justified battle against tyranny or any sort of example of the second amendment "in action." It's disturbing to me how much you misunderstand and the weird examples you use to "prove" something that really don't have anything to do with what we are talking about.

And for the bazillionth time, your last point is also very wrong. Please read my response to this somewhere in the middle of this thread. The Second Amendment gives the people a ton of power. A Cliffnotes version is, Over 100,000,000 US citizens own a firearm. (to put it in perspective, China's entire military is 2 million strong and it is the largest standing military in the world). Further, the police are likely not going to support the removal of the second amendment. Whole states would likely succeed and/or fight. There is a good chance much of the active military would turn against the government. There are millions of trained and experienced veterans, a majority of which would likely fight for freedom. Populations in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and other places that are a tiny fraction of this, with far less to defend with, have successfully defeated Superpowers. The US itself exists because a tiny rabble of colonists successfully defeated the top super power in the world at that time. Please read what I wrote so you have a factual and historical understanding of these things. Just saying "we couldn't beat the government" without any thought, perspective or knowledge is ignorant (weak and fatalist).

Jamaica blue wrote:

Uncle Samson wrote:

So you are saying that cars are far more dangerous than guns, and only through regulation and control have we reduced auto accident deaths to the level of guns.

When somebody uses a car for its purpose there's a chance of death, but the chance is far lower than the chance of death when someone uses a gun for its purpose. So no, cars are not more dangerous.

If somebody near me used their car with the intention of travelling to point B, I would not consider it dangerous. If somebody near me used their weapon with the intention of shooting, I would find situation more dangerous.

Do you have statistics that prove what you are saying, or are you just assuming based on the sensationalism you get from the crazy media and the left wing?

If you have legitimate statistics that prove your statement, I would love to see them. Since I don't, I will state my opinion and actually back it up with some logic.

Your statement is "uses a gun or uses a car for its purpose". The overwhelming majority of people use a car "for its purpose", yet its death rate is equal to the death rate from guns.

Most gun deaths are a result of NOT using a gun for its purpose, if you assume that murder, suicide and being a dumb ass and accidentally killing someone are not its intended purpose. That means that the purpose of a gun is self-defense and sport. So if a gun is used for its intended purpose and is used correctly, it is very safe. Much like using a knife for its intended purpose is safe, or using a lawnmower for its intended purpose is safe, or using a chainsaw for its intended purpose is safe, or swimming is safe, or whatever. There are dangers from all kinds of things, but those dangers are both low and accepted for things.

A car is a speeding pile of metal, that can be messed up by weather, road conditions, distractions, other drivers, animals, etc. The ability to react to many of the things that a driver encounters is challenging, and since the car is often traveling at a dangerous speed, accidents and deaths happen. If a car is being used as intended in daily life, and a gun is being used as intended in daily life, I think you are far far far more likely to have a death from a car.

You may not have used a firearm and thus maybe you are one of these people that seems to believe guns sneak around looking for victims, much like a cougar or a shark in the water. When used properly (as intended), with safety first, it is highly unlikely anyone will ever get hurt from a gun.