The Gun Control Debate

[Ban Hammer 14,286]

Semiautomatic makes the gun less deadly then?

yes. lower rate of fire.

Semiautomatic or automatic, neither of those weapons were around when the Constitution were written.

neither were cars and computers. should we ban them too?

Not by much.

Cars are a mode of transport. Computers store data. Guns shoot.

Next?

so we ban things that shoot? ok, get rid of that laser pointer. and any air compressers as they shoot air. got a water cannon or fire hydrant? they shoot water.

becca, i've fired auto and semi auto. there is a significant difference in rate of fire. don't give me that not by much nonsense.

"Nonsense" is the presumption that you have a right to own any type of firearm they can manufacture. Or any number of them you choose. The Second Amendment doesn't give you that right. If States choose to limit either, they are well within their legal bounds.

I'll be all for limiting the ownerhsip of laser pointers, air compressors, water cannons or fire hydrants whenever I see a rash of killings using those things.

owning an automatic weapon is strictly licensed. check into it. and yes, i can own as many as i want within the bouds of state and federal law. if you knew anything about guns you'd know you use the right tool for the right job. you don't go deer hunting with a .22 (in many states it's probably illegal....).

[Peikko 1,575]

There just HAS to a limit to the number of weapons a responsible society allows in its midst. Rampant gun ownership isn't what our founding fathers had in mind. That type of 'liberty' can only create the very anarchy they were trying to grant us.

There is a lot of truth in this statement.

[Ban Hammer 14,286]

I understand and I guess I respect much of what you are saying. I don't understand your fascination with certain types of guns or why you would want to own the newest, fastest-firing one. I don't understand the theory that if all of us were packing, we would be a safer society. To me, violence begats violence. If you expect me and others like me to respect your right to keep guns, you surely must understand there has to be some respect on your part to not hold your individual right over the rights of safety in our society. There just HAS to a limit to the number of weapons a responsible society allows in its midst. Rampant gun ownership isn't what our founding fathers had in mind. That type of 'liberty' can only create the very anarchy they were trying to grant us.

where did i or anyone else say we have the newest, fastest firing guns? and while i may have a bunch of guns, i can't fire all of them at once.

if you'd like, i'll detail for you what i consider to be the bare minimum number of guns a person may have. also, keep in mind that some of the guns i have are war trophies from my dad being in vietnam......

There just HAS to a limit to the number of weapons a responsible society allows in its midst. Rampant gun ownership isn't what our founding fathers had in mind. That type of 'liberty' can only create the very anarchy they were trying to grant us.

There is a lot of truth in this statement.

then what do you consider to be the limit?

[rebeccajo 14]

I understand and I guess I respect much of what you are saying. I don't understand your fascination with certain types of guns or why you would want to own the newest, fastest-firing one. I don't understand the theory that if all of us were packing, we would be a safer society. To me, violence begats violence. If you expect me and others like me to respect your right to keep guns, you surely must understand there has to be some respect on your part to not hold your individual right over the rights of safety in our society. There just HAS to a limit to the number of weapons a responsible society allows in its midst. Rampant gun ownership isn't what our founding fathers had in mind. That type of 'liberty' can only create the very anarchy they were trying to grant us.

where did i or anyone else say we have the newest, fastest firing guns? and while i may have a bunch of guns, i can't fire all of them at once.

if you'd like, i'll detail for you what i consider to be the bare minimum number of guns a person may have. also, keep in mind that some of the guns i have are war trophies from my dad being in vietnam......

There just HAS to a limit to the number of weapons a responsible society allows in its midst. Rampant gun ownership isn't what our founding fathers had in mind. That type of 'liberty' can only create the very anarchy they were trying to grant us.

There is a lot of truth in this statement.

then what do you consider to be the limit?

Charles, I don't know.......you can patently tell I'm no 'gun expert'. I'm sure you could tell me why you need different types of guns for different types of applications. Whether you and I would agree on that might be different - it might not.

If there were to be a limit, I would suggest that guns people inherit (like your fathers) would not enter into the equation. I am talking about the maximum purchasing potential a consumer might be limited too. You personally may not be after the 'latest' type of gun, but I'd venture a guess many people are. Why else the constant development of new ones? And I'm not going to buy into any argument about 'product development' - the manufacture and sale of guns is just like any other commodity in America. It's done for profit.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

I wouldn't be upset if guns were banned from this country altogether.

Going to get my flame retardant suit now...

probably because you don't have one to begin with.

I own a gun and I think they should be outlawed.

[Peikko 1,575]

I would suggest that trophy guns are rendered inoperable. I would hazard a guess that any guns one sees in public exhibitions can't be fired and I can't see any good reason why they need to be capable of firing.

[SMOKE 1,426]

I wouldn't be upset if guns were banned from this country altogether.

Going to get my flame retardant suit now...

probably because you don't have one to begin with.

I own a gun and I think they should be outlawed.

then why do you own it?

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

I wouldn't be upset if guns were banned from this country altogether.

Going to get my flame retardant suit now...

probably because you don't have one to begin with.

I own a gun and I think they should be outlawed.

then why do you own it?

Because I hunted throughout my childhood. At this point, the gun is safer with my family than it is anywhere else.

I don't necessarily think that rifles should be outlawed, but handguns should be without question.

Please, someone give me a good reason to own a handgun.

If you say self defense, that's a crappy argument because you need it to protect you from the thousands of guns on the street.

If you say target shooting, go buy a frisbee and pick up disk golf. A hobby does not justify owning a deadly weapon.

[Ban Hammer 14,286]

I would suggest that trophy guns are rendered inoperable. I would hazard a guess that any guns one sees in public exhibitions can't be fired and I can't see any good reason why they need to be capable of firing.

that's downright stupid.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

I would suggest that trophy guns are rendered inoperable. I would hazard a guess that any guns one sees in public exhibitions can't be fired and I can't see any good reason why they need to be capable of firing.

that's downright stupid.

Why? Please articulate what is so stupid about it.

[Ban Hammer 14,286]

Please, someone give me a good reason to own a handgun.

If you say self defense, that's a crappy argument because you need it to protect you from the thousands of guns on the street.

If you say target shooting, go buy a frisbee and pick up disk golf. A hobby does not justify owning a deadly weapon.

quite simply, lawful concealed carry of a shotgun or rifle is illegal. next?

and golf clubs can be deadly too

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Please, someone give me a good reason to own a handgun.

If you say self defense, that's a crappy argument because you need it to protect you from the thousands of guns on the street.

If you say target shooting, go buy a frisbee and pick up disk golf. A hobby does not justify owning a deadly weapon.

quite simply, lawful concealed carry of a shotgun or rifle is illegal. next?

and golf clubs can be deadly too

But why do you need to be able to carry a concealed weapon?

You are comparing apples to peanuts with the golf clubs argument.

Edited February 16, 2008 by AnewKINDofFEELIN

[Ban Hammer 14,286]

I understand and I guess I respect much of what you are saying. I don't understand your fascination with certain types of guns or why you would want to own the newest, fastest-firing one. I don't understand the theory that if all of us were packing, we would be a safer society. To me, violence begats violence. If you expect me and others like me to respect your right to keep guns, you surely must understand there has to be some respect on your part to not hold your individual right over the rights of safety in our society. There just HAS to a limit to the number of weapons a responsible society allows in its midst. Rampant gun ownership isn't what our founding fathers had in mind. That type of 'liberty' can only create the very anarchy they were trying to grant us.

where did i or anyone else say we have the newest, fastest firing guns? and while i may have a bunch of guns, i can't fire all of them at once.

if you'd like, i'll detail for you what i consider to be the bare minimum number of guns a person may have. also, keep in mind that some of the guns i have are war trophies from my dad being in vietnam......

There just HAS to a limit to the number of weapons a responsible society allows in its midst. Rampant gun ownership isn't what our founding fathers had in mind. That type of 'liberty' can only create the very anarchy they were trying to grant us.

There is a lot of truth in this statement.

then what do you consider to be the limit?

Charles, I don't know.......you can patently tell I'm no 'gun expert'. I'm sure you could tell me why you need different types of guns for different types of applications. Whether you and I would agree on that might be different - it might not.

If there were to be a limit, I would suggest that guns people inherit (like your fathers) would not enter into the equation. I am talking about the maximum purchasing potential a consumer might be limited too. You personally may not be after the 'latest' type of gun, but I'd venture a guess many people are. Why else the constant development of new ones? And I'm not going to buy into any argument about 'product development' - the manufacture and sale of guns is just like any other commodity in America. It's done for profit.

i can tell quite a few in here ain't gun experts.

a majority of my guns were made prior to 1980. maybe 5 of them made after that. not hardly what i'd call getting the latest and greatest is it?

imo the following is what i'd call the bare minimum for someone who hunts and has a cch license.

pistols:

1 .22

1 9mm to .40 cal

1 large caliber pistol like a .44 mag

rifles

1 .22

1 30-30 or similar for brush hunting (short range)

1 30-06 or similar for mid range to long range

1 25-06 or similar for long range

shotguns

1 12 gauge

total - 8

[rebeccajo 14]

Please, someone give me a good reason to own a handgun.

If you say self defense, that's a crappy argument because you need it to protect you from the thousands of guns on the street.

If you say target shooting, go buy a frisbee and pick up disk golf. A hobby does not justify owning a deadly weapon.

quite simply, lawful concealed carry of a shotgun or rifle is illegal. next?

and golf clubs can be deadly too

Did I just pick up on a misnomer?

Hey Charles, I have to run. My sister wants a partner today for retail therapy. Just want to say I'm not picking on you personally. If you read me right, I think you can see I'm trying to see both sides. How about you do the same?

Peace.

[Ban Hammer 14,286]

I would suggest that trophy guns are rendered inoperable. I would hazard a guess that any guns one sees in public exhibitions can't be fired and I can't see any good reason why they need to be capable of firing.

that's downright stupid.

Why? Please articulate what is so stupid about it.

you've just destroyed the gun. that makes about as much sense as destroying the engine on a 59 corvette.

Please, someone give me a good reason to own a handgun.

If you say self defense, that's a crappy argument because you need it to protect you from the thousands of guns on the street.

If you say target shooting, go buy a frisbee and pick up disk golf. A hobby does not justify owning a deadly weapon.

quite simply, lawful concealed carry of a shotgun or rifle is illegal. next?

and golf clubs can be deadly too

But why do you need to be able to carry a concealed weapon?

You are comparing apples to peanuts with the golf clubs argument.

ever owned a business where you had large amounts of cash you had to take to the bank?

next?

(btw i knew of a gal from pi who took a golf club to her husband once, messed him up pretty good)