Gun ownership poll

[Smarti5051]

Since everybody is giving an opinion, I guess here is mine. I don't own a gun, and I guess I would take some comfort in knowing that there are not millions of them circulating around the general population. Do I believe that the majority of gun owners are safe, responsible and actually create a deterrent to gun violence? Yes. But, I have lived long enough and seen enough to know that this country also has alot of idiots (and mob mentality can quickly escalate normally peaceful idiots to violence), and the thought of them having easy access to guns is a bit scary.

The question I do have for the pro-gun side, is: what is the advantage to having legal guns that can shoot 100+ rounds per minute? If the concern is gun for safety and protection, I have to think a 10-12 round gun would cover 99.99% of safety threats - indeed, even our police who are put in harm's way daily do not walk around with machine guns. If used for hunting, I feel like anything more than 10-12 shots at a single target would seem like cheating (granted, I am not a hunter). If it is just for entertainment of shooting guns, I have to think a compromise whereby businesses are set up with special licensing to safely shoot machine guns. If it is to potentially form a militia to overthrow a corrupt government, this seems naive, as any corrupt leader of this nation's weapons stockpile with the support of the US military could easily dispose of any uprising of the citizenry even with the best publicly available weaponry. This will not stop a criminal enterprise from acquiring a machine gun through illegal means, but it will stop many of the idiots who do not have the resources or connections to acquire them easily.

Also, I am a bit skeptical that any sort of background check would really unearth many of the red flags that seem to surface in the days after a mass shooting. Mental health issues are not like a blood test which comes up negative or positive. A seemingly normal adult (or child) could have a string of events that lead to depression and a chemical imbalance. How is any background check really going to detect this? Not to mention, if you took away rights of anyone with a diagnosed "mental illness" in their past, you would actually chill anyone from seeking help and cause a massive S***-storm from those that have successfully overcome past mental health issues.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

Since everybody is giving an opinion, I guess here is mine. I don't own a gun, and I guess I would take some comfort in knowing that there are not millions of them circulating around the general population. Do I believe that the majority of gun owners are safe, responsible and actually create a deterrent to gun violence? Yes. But, I have lived long enough and seen enough to know that this country also has alot of idiots (and mob mentality can quickly escalate normally peaceful idiots to violence), and the thought of them having easy access to guns is a bit scary.

The question I do have for the pro-gun side, is: what is the advantage to having legal guns that can shoot 100+ rounds per minute? If the concern is gun for safety and protection, I have to think a 10-12 round gun would cover 99.99% of safety threats - indeed, even our police who are put in harm's way daily do not walk around with machine guns. If used for hunting, I feel like anything more than 10-12 shots at a single target would seem like cheating (granted, I am not a hunter). If it is just for entertainment of shooting guns, I have to think a compromise whereby businesses are set up with special licensing to safely shoot machine guns. If it is to potentially form a militia to overthrow a corrupt government, this seems naive, as any corrupt leader of this nation's weapons stockpile with the support of the US military could easily dispose of any uprising of the citizenry even with the best publicly available weaponry. This will not stop a criminal enterprise from acquiring a machine gun through illegal means, but it will stop many of the idiots who do not have the resources or connections to acquire them easily.

Also, I am a bit skeptical that any sort of background check would really unearth many of the red flags that seem to surface in the days after a mass shooting. Mental health issues are not like a blood test which comes up negative or positive. A seemingly normal adult (or child) could have a string of events that lead to depression and a chemical imbalance. How is any background check really going to detect this? Not to mention, if you took away rights of anyone with a diagnosed "mental illness" in their past, you would actually chill anyone from seeking help and cause a massive S***-storm from those that have successfully overcome past mental health issues.

When someone is known to be looking at, even engaging in violent rhetoric, and then vocally espousing white-supremacist vitriol and the need to perform an incident to beat all incidents whereby listeners talk about it on Facebook and Twitter, why can't that Intel be spread among the agencies, one hand talking to the other, and have a law enforcement agency pay him a visit before he has the chance to act out his evil deed?

[Smarti5051]

Originally Posted by jingram058

When someone is known to be looking at, even engaging in violent rhetoric, and then vocally espousing white-supremacist vitriol

There are literally hundreds of thousands of these people engaging in this conduct daily, to various degrees. And, most of the time, there is nothing illegal in engaging in any of the activities above online. And, "white-supremacist vitriol" is only one extreme. There are plenty of extremes in this country and every year social media pushes folks closer to these extremes. For a government agency to make a personal visit to everyone that has a "negative thought" would only exacerbate the situation and bankrupt the country as we would have to increase these government agencies by 100-200x their current staffing.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

There are plenty of extremes in this country and every year social media pushes folks closer to these extremes.

-- Anti-abortion (edited: those who stalk, threaten, and attack doctors)
-- Environmental terrorism (not as popular anymore)
-- Bundy ranchers who want to end public ownership of land
-- Antifa (but I haven't heard much from them in two years)
etc etc etc

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Being against abortion is "extreme"?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Being against abortion is "extreme"?

As a personal view, no. In the US, though, as a country founded on and prizing the value of personal freedoms, outlawing it (and incentivizing citizens to spy on and report to the authorities their neighbors who are involved in it) is extreme. (Not to mention cruel, as those most harmed by such policies are the poor, who are less likely to be able to afford to travel for the procedure, or to financially support a child they forced by the state to have.)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

As a personal view, no. In the US, though, as a country founded on and prizing the value of personal freedoms, outlawing it (and incentivizing citizens to spy on and report to the authorities their neighbors who are involved in it) is extreme. (Not to mention cruel, as those most harmed by such policies are the poor, who are less likely to be able to afford to travel for the procedure, or to financially support a child they forced by the state to have.)

It would not be productive to debate it, but I disagree strongly that the vast majority of pro-life people are "extremists." I would acknowledge there are some whose tactics I don't particularly favor.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Being against abortion is "extreme"?

Yes, haven't you been keeping up with social media? Those anti-abortionists are showing up at the homes of supreme court justices protesting and threatening them, making other terroristic threats if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, threatening churches, threatening that there will be "blood in the streets" and...oh, wait...that would be the ones in favor of abortion. My bad. Carry on.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Yes, haven't you been keeping up with social media? Those anti-abortionists are showing up at the homes of supreme court justices protesting and threatening them, making other terroristic threats if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, threatening churches, threatening that there will be "blood in the streets" and...oh, wait...that would be the ones in favor of abortion. My bad. Carry on.

When it is overturned, David, when.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Being against abortion is "extreme"?

No, not in and of itself. But there are anti-abortion extremists. They have stalked, threatened, and attacked doctors who perform abortions.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by todeen

No, not in and of itself. But there are anti-abortion extremists. They have stalked, threatened, and attacked doctors who perform abortions.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

Fair enough, as I said I don't condone that and don't think it helps the cause. But I think that once the S Ct opinion is official, you'll see some pretty unpalatable stuff from the so-called "rights" advocates as well.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jingram058

When someone is known to be looking at, even engaging in violent rhetoric, and then vocally espousing white-supremacist vitriol and the need to perform an incident to beat all incidents whereby listeners talk about it on Facebook and Twitter, why can't that Intel be spread among the agencies, one hand talking to the other, and have a law enforcement agency pay him a visit before he has the chance to act out his evil deed?

It would be a lot cheaper and more efficient to step up security in schools. The government investigating every nut job who posts on Twitter? Good luck with that.

[Deertick]

If "constitutional carry" becomes the norm, a Rangers/Rays game may have the hit total surpassed by the shot total.
In my county alone, over a dozen handguns were stolen from unlocked vehicles in January alone. Zero repercussions to the "responsible gun owners". Every day there are posts on sites like Facebook and Nextdoor of people intimating that if someone were to "try" to steal their car/truck/cat/dog, they would be shot because of their mistaken interpretation of "castle doctrine" or SYG. This past year, there have been two CCP gentlemen who were deemed to have "accidently displayed" during arguments with unarmed persons.

Our current societal environment does not support unfettered carry. Any actions taken to try and mitigate any of the above instances gets squashed in a second. I have zero hope that situations like Columbine, Sandy Hook, LV, Parkland, Buffalo, and Uvalde will become a thing of the past.

I own a Colt Special Agent Revolver loaded with .38 +P

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

The question I do have for the pro-gun side, is: what is the advantage to having legal guns that can shoot 100+ rounds per minute? If the concern is gun for safety and protection, I have to think a 10-12 round gun would cover 99.99% of safety threats - indeed, even our police who are put in harm's way daily do not walk around with machine guns. If used for hunting, I feel like anything more than 10-12 shots at a single target would seem like cheating (granted, I am not a hunter). If it is just for entertainment of shooting guns, I have to think a compromise whereby businesses are set up with special licensing to safely shoot machine guns. If it is to potentially form a militia to overthrow a corrupt government, this seems naive, as any corrupt leader of this nation's weapons stockpile with the support of the US military could easily dispose of any uprising of the citizenry even with the best publicly available weaponry. This will not stop a criminal enterprise from acquiring a machine gun through illegal means, but it will stop many of the idiots who do not have the resources or connections to acquire them easily.

.

I think you are covering two different things here, rate of fire and magazine size.

First, almost nobody is defending themself with a machine gun. A machine gun that was registered before 1986 is legally transferable in free states. They cost many thousands of dollars and I am not aware of even one time they have been used in a self defense situation - they are for the rich hobbyist and carefully guarded. No home owner wants the cops to seize his $40,000 registered machine gun if he must protect his family. Machine guns are easily acquired or made with even limited mechanical knowledge - in a lot of ways it’s actually easier to manufacture a machine gun than a semi-automatic.

As for over 100 rounds per minute, this is not a real thing with the semi-auto’s 99.999% of self defense rifles and pistols are. It’s an RPM measurement, what the gun can mechanically fire. An AR can mechanically cycle 500 times a minute, but you don’t shoot at a semi autos maximum mechanical ability in the real world. If you somehow did, you’d set fire to it before you hit 500. 100 round drum magazines do exist (nobody is using belt feed guns for home defense) but are generally much less reliable and not used for serious purpose. The standard home defense setup in 2022 is an M4 with a 30 round magazine (often downloaded to 28 or 29 for smoother operation of the bolt and feeding).

As for the magazine capacity, my response would be why would I hamper myself to a disadvantage? The local gangs aren’t running around with 10 round magazines. More and more home invasions are conducted by more than one person (as was the one I survived). 10 rounds of 5.56 ain’t much if you’ve got 3 guys invading your home. I want a full mag in the well, and 2 more attached to my stock to reload. A criminal will not (and does not - many states have these restrictions and they have accomplished exactly nothing) respect a 10 round capacity limit, it only makes it harder for responsible citizens to defend their families. 10 round mags can also be a pain to reload, the designs just are not built for such a small magazine. Reloading an AK with a 10 round mag is a pain and people tend to screw up the rock in with them.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by G1911

A thread that has been pretty polite and mannered debating firearms ownership is the most disrespectful thing you have ever encountered?

What's the intent of the thread? The OP has a pretty politicized slant when he starts the thread with "There is no question this country has a gun problem."

How many 4th graders were killed by an evil POS, and almost immediately a post goes up about gun ownership? Not "how do we protect our children"?

I'm tired of the predictable and inevitable "gun control" debate that follows any tragic shooting. The number one debate should be "how do we protect our children" followed by "what is causing the human behind the firearm to commit such atrocities?"

So yes, this is a pretty disrespectful thread in my eyes.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

What's the intent of the thread? The OP has a pretty politicized slant when he starts the thread with "There is no question this country has a gun problem."

How many 4th graders were killed by an evil POS, and almost immediately a post goes up about gun ownership? Not "how do we protect our children"?

I'm tired of the predictable and inevitable "gun control" debate that follows any tragic shooting. The number one debate should be "how do we protect our children" followed by "what is causing the human behind the firearm to commit such atrocities?"

So yes, this is a pretty disrespectful thread in my eyes.

It's a debate and he started with his premise. Others have rebutted, agreed and disagreed.
Personally, I think this thread has been quite tame. IF it goes off the rail it will get locked. Hopefully it stays ok.
Also, if anyone is seriously debating you need to have your name out here per the rules (or per me asking for them in this thread, whatever you want)

As for this debate, I don't think guns kill people. I have never heard of a gun just killing someone with no one pulling the trigger (yes, there are probably extraordinary situations).
I will go back to the biggest problem in America today, and what leads to most (not all) of this, BAD PARENTING.

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The last word is yours Bob. You're too angry, defensive and reactive for me to engage in a reasonable discussion. It seems a person can't disagree with you without you taking personal offense and turning it into a fight/diatribe. No thanks. Peace.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Leon

It's a debate and he started with his premise. Others have rebutted, agreed and disagreed.
Personally, I think this thread has been quite tame. IF it goes off the rail it will get locked. Hopefully it stays ok.
Also, if anyone is seriously debating you need to have your name out here per the rules (or per me asking for them in this thread, whatever you want)

As for this debate, I don't think guns kill people. I have never heard of a gun just killing someone with no one pulling the trigger (yes, there are probably extraordinary situations).
I will go back to the biggest problem in America today, and what leads to most (not all) of this, BAD PARENTING.

.

I'm not saying the thread should be locked. It's hardly a debate, though, when the OP states "There is no question this country has a gun problem," and anyone else who partakes in the so-called debate is handcuffed by a "no politics rule" fear.

I simply believe it's in poor taste to have this discussion/debate in the wake of an event that took the lives of a bunch of 4th graders. Between the shooter's mental health history, the obvious piss poor parenting from the POS's POS mother, and the police response, blaming the inanimate firearm(s) shouldn't even come to mind.

All shootings involve mental health issues, while most additionally involve family issues and some sort of Big Pharma drug. Nobody wants to debate that, though, because it 1) doesn't make someone money, 2) the topics don't exactly fit certain political agendas, and 3) actually solving problems means less money to be made and less opportunity at power grabs, encompassing 1 & 2.

Never let a good crisis go to waste, right? So, please, "debate" away while my wife and I discuss schooling options that are not public school, considering "debates" like this prove fewer people actually care about focusing on real solutions to protecting our kids than should.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Kyle, to one of your points, last year in my hometown the police shot and killed a man who refused to put down his weapon and was behaving in a very threatening way. The officers were exonerated, but what struck me was the finding that the man was on an unbelievable cocktail of about 10 psychoactive meds. My thought was that his doctor was the one who should have been investigated.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

I'm not saying the thread should be locked. It's hardly a debate, though, when the OP states "There is no question this country has a gun problem," and anyone else who partakes in the so-called debate is handcuffed by a "no politics rule" fear.

I simply believe it's in poor taste to have this discussion/debate in the wake of an event that took the lives of a bunch of 4th graders. Between the shooter's mental health history, the obvious piss poor parenting from the POS's POS mother, and the police response, blaming the inanimate firearm(s) shouldn't even come to mind.

All shootings involve mental health issues, while most additionally involve family issues and some sort of Big Pharma drug. Nobody wants to debate that, though, because it 1) doesn't make someone money, 2) the topics don't exactly fit certain political agendas, and 3) actually solving problems means less money to be made and less opportunity at power grabs, encompassing 1 & 2.

Never let a good crisis go to waste, right? So, please, "debate" away while my wife and I discuss schooling options that are not public school, considering "debates" like this prove fewer people actually care about focusing on real solutions to protecting our kids than should.

I feel it's ok to have this discussion in the wake of a huge tragedy. It might be more disrespectful in a different venue (such as in Uvalde proper) as it might be seen as too soon. There have been tens of millions of discussions just like this one since this last tragedy.

I politely disagree with "all shootings involve mental issues" . Maybe most mass shootings do but not ALL shootings in general. That said I am only guessing.

I think this debate does, as you and your wife are doing, spur debate concerning school safety, home schooling and much more. That is a good thing.
.

[vintagetoppsguy]

How many remember the Cokeville Elementary School Bombing? It happened in Cokeville, WY on May 16, 1986. A crazed loon and his wife took 154 hostages (mostly children) in a classroom and threatened to designate a bomb if his demands weren't met (I think he wanted $2 million per child, but I don't remember exactly). Anyway, the idiot's wife accidentally designated the bomb and fortunately only her and her husband were killed. However, a lot more were seriously injured. My point is this: you don’t need guns to kill a lot of people. These two idiots tried to do it with a bomb. Sure, you can argue that they were unsuccessful and only killed themselves in the end, but the point is that the bomb was powerful enough that it could have killed everyone in that classroom. Just remember 9/11 - a few bad guys with boxcutters killed nearly 3000 people and there were no guns involved. We didn’t have discussions about banning boxcutters or making them less accessible. No, we locked and reinforced cockpit doors. Why don’t we lock schools (where were can) and individual classrooms?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

What's the intent of the thread? The OP has a pretty politicized slant when he starts the thread with "There is no question this country has a gun problem."

How many 4th graders were killed by an evil POS, and almost immediately a post goes up about gun ownership? Not "how do we protect our children"?

I'm tired of the predictable and inevitable "gun control" debate that follows any tragic shooting. The number one debate should be "how do we protect our children" followed by "what is causing the human behind the firearm to commit such atrocities?"

So yes, this is a pretty disrespectful thread in my eyes.

The OP is as entitled to give his opinion as anyone else.

I don't disagree with your view, I too wish people who stop pretending it's a tool if the tool used has political capital (there's never a left-wing outrage over a hammer murder or a knife murder) and would address the actual issue: the person who used the tool. But everyone is entitled to their opinion in a debate.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Michael, if "pro-abortion" is not the best or most neutral term, then neither is "pro-choice," which is a feelgood phase that misleadingly implies that all that is involved is a decision by a single individual.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Michael, if "pro-abortion" is not the best or most neutral term, then neither is "pro-choice," which is a feelgood phase that misleadingly implies that all that is involved is a decision by a single individual.

All of the "pro-x" terms being discussed are imperfect and leave out some truth.

As to whether America has "a parenting problem" or "a mental health problem" or a "profits above human lives problem" the answer, in my view, is yes to all of these.

For some perspective on whether or not America has "a gun problem", I recommend speaking with literally anyone outside of our country.

[Deertick]

I remember when we just measured pee-pees. Now it's the number of, capacity of, and firing rate of our firearms.
I find it very interesting that seemingly sane "collectors' and "sportsman" fall into a Rambo-esque wet dream when posed with the fictional scenario of "them coming for my guns". I wonder who they think will be coming? Will the unwavering support for our military and law enforcement be shrugged off as they lay a spray across their front lawn?

The rhetoric is insane. Both sides know there is common ground. As in any issue, allowing the loudest on each side to dominate the "discussion" is rarely the solution.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Michael, if "pro-abortion" is not the best or most neutral term, then neither is "pro-choice," which is a feelgood phase that misleadingly implies that all that is involved is a decision by a single individual.

Whether or not to have an abortion IS a choice, usually decided by either one or two (the father if he's around) people. It's not a "feelgood" phrase, it's simply a phrase that best describes the one side of the issue - that a woman should be able to choose whether she has an abortion or not. Whether to have an abortion or not is an agonizing choice women must make after very careful consideration. It doesn't mean they are pro-abortion, it means that at that moment, choosing to have an abortion is best for them.

The whole issue regarding abortion comes down to one question - when does life begin? If a person believes life begins at conception, then they should be against abortions and should choose not to have one. But, not everyone believes that life begins at conception. I don't (that's why I can be pro-life and pro-choice). Women who choose to have an abortion most likely do not. Many other people do not believe life begins at conception. By not allowing a pregnant woman to abort the unborn fetus if that is her choice, a person who believes life begins at conception is imposing their BELIEF on that woman. She's being denied her choice. Earlier you were talking about extreme views - my belief is that believing life begins at conception is the extreme view. Many extreme responses are required to fully implement that view.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

But, not everyone believes that life begins at conception. I don't (that's why I can be pro-life and pro-choice).

It's proven science that life begins at conception whether you want to believe it or not. That's why Roe vs. Wade is now a more hot button topic than ever because the science wasn't around back then. You can believe that the world is flat if you want to and that's certainly your choice, but science would prove you wrong. Conversely, science has proven that life begins with conception.

But, just out of curiosity, when do you believe that life begins?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Here's an interesting piece on that "extreme" view of life.

https://abort73.com/abortion/abortio...pocratic_oath/

[Directly]

There must be laws here as in England with regulations on knives allowed to be carried , no guns for citizens or law enforcement in England or Australia. Only the military need weapons,

[1952boyntoncollector]

I too am a fan of enforcing laws on the books.

Also i propose random searches of people on the street with a metal detector.....if drugs are found but they are declared before search you cant be arrested for that or anything else declared...

even if have a warrant for arrest, you would get a mandatory court appearence and receive a ticket but not have to post any bond but if do not show up they are new charges..

basically i dont want police using the random search to target people who then get arrested for other crimes but get the guns off the street...

if dont have a license to carry a gun you shouldnt have one on the street ..

If someone were to run from a search knowing they cant be arrested for anything other than carrying the gun, it would give good reason for a foot pursuit as we alway hear 'he ran cause had a warrant' etc....

[G1911]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

I too am a fan of enforcing laws on the books.

Also i propose random searches of people on the street with a metal detector.....if drugs are found but they are declared before search you cant be arrested for that or anything else declared...

even if have a warrant for arrest, you would get a mandatory court appearence and receive a ticket but not have to post any bond but if do not show up they are new charges..

basically i dont want police using the random search to target people who then get arrested for other crimes but get the guns off the street...

if dont have a license to carry a gun you shouldnt have one on the street ..

If someone were to run from a search knowing they cant be arrested for anything other than carrying the gun, it would give good reason for a foot pursuit as we alway hear 'he ran cause had a warrant' etc....

https://constitution.congress.gov/co...n/amendment-4/

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by G1911

https://constitution.congress.gov/co...n/amendment-4/

metal detector is not unreasonable.......i do think the amount of people killed by gun violence is unreasonable..

[G1911]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

metal detector is not unreasonable.......i do think the amount of people killed by gun violence is unreasonable..

Not even the most anti-gun left-wing courts in the land are going to rule that the police 'randomly' searching, with no suspicion whatsoever, who are just out in general public and not a sensitive location that some courts consider separate (a courthouse, federal buildings, etc.) in order to arrest them for carrying a gun (which has just been reaffirmed as a core constitutional right), but for no other legal violations is in any way constitutional. It is an absurdly blatant violation of the 4th amendment that protects exactly against being searched without any cause or warrant.

This will lose 9-0 on the current court.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by G1911

Not even the most anti-gun left-wing courts in the land are going to rule that the police 'randomly' searching, with no suspicion whatsoever, who are just out in general public and not a sensitive location that some courts consider separate (a courthouse, federal buildings, etc.) in order to arrest them for carrying a gun (which has just been reaffirmed as a core constitutional right), but for no other legal violations is in any way constitutional. It is an absurdly blatant violation of the 4th amendment that protects exactly against being searched without any cause or warrant.

This will lose 9-0 on the current court.

Can easily say random or some search at 10 pm call it a gun curfew...or if in a high prior shooting crime area...can easily make it more than 'random'

15 year olds dont have a right to carry a concealed gun on the streets at least the most anti gun left wing courts would agree to that.....the idea is we can come up with something.......

[HexsHeroes]

.

I own four vintage shotguns that have not been shot in many years.

Have been seriously considering giving my guns to the four beneficiaries (all gun enthusiast with proper storage equipment) defined within my will now, instead of later. Would be another positive step in simplifying/eliminating the extra stuff I have as I prepare for future retirement (3-4 years out). Would like to eventually downsize to a much smaller house/accommondations so what I no longer own I will no longer need to deal with in a move.

[1991AtlantaBraves]

Banning video games such as the GTA series, television shows such as Breaking Bad, and music labeled with “explicit lyrics” would actually reduce violent crime quite a bit…..not to mention imposing heavy fines/long jail terms/death penalty on the offenders - whichever one(s) fit the crime.

This is a spiritual battle being waged, but one side completely refuses to acknowledge this fact. Said side has too much to lose if it’s wrong, I suppose.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by 1991AtlantaBraves

Banning video games such as the GTA series, television shows such as Breaking Bad, and music labeled with “explicit lyrics” would actually reduce violent crime quite a bit…..not to mention imposing heavy fines/long jail terms/death penalty on the offenders - whichever one(s) fit the crime.

This is a spiritual battle being waged, but one side completely refuses to acknowledge this fact. Said side has too much to lose if it’s wrong, I suppose.

i hate the music you are referring too as well but becomes a slippery slope when start to say what has a bad influence on people so lets control it...who gets to control it and who doesnt get controlled who barely makes the cut who makes a huuuge profit versus the guy that gets cut so has to file bankruptcy is a very thin line....who decides and how you know thats fair.........politics plays a role which means not a pure decision but a political one.

where are the parents as well who can help control their kids ability to view certain content and i would think that should be a parents choice not political.... i agree on the jail terms etc but again thats politics..

..death penalty i never for because if one person killed and was due to politics not fair....if kill one person by mistake ever not fair ..costs more to kill someone than to keep in jail...if somebody kills a hostage and knows will now get the death penalty why not kill more since punishment the same.... people have been let out of jail on death row years later when proven were innocent...if killed zero chance to free them...not sure how anyone can be for death penalty when everyone knows people go on death row that are later freed for being innocent ..

[G1911]

Originally Posted by 1991AtlantaBraves

Banning video games such as the GTA series, television shows such as Breaking Bad, and music labeled with “explicit lyrics” would actually reduce violent crime quite a bit…..not to mention imposing heavy fines/long jail terms/death penalty on the offenders - whichever one(s) fit the crime.

This is a spiritual battle being waged, but one side completely refuses to acknowledge this fact. Said side has too much to lose if it’s wrong, I suppose.

Even if the suppositions were true, I would be as against banning music, films and games and ignoring the first amendment as I am against ignoring the second amendment.

I don’t think there’s much of a connection though. Violence has been prevalent in art and literature since the very beginning. Homer and Hesiod, the first western literature are replete with it. Fiction tends to always go in the most shocking direction. I think there is much to be said for the time when people spoke properly, wore suits when they went anywhere in public, and would be horrified to hear the words common on radio said so publicly. The current form, in which there are less social restrictions on people’s choices and lives than ever before certainly has not made for a happier youth, with depression being almost trendy among my generation and the next one. But I don’t think 1) there is a way to have everything perfect and 2) it has not produced much violence, statistically.

In fact, violence went down for the generation of NWA and Call of Duty. Violence has steadily dropped with time until it rocketed in 2020 for reasons that don’t seem to be generational or entertainment related.

My gut feeling would be that flooding kids with displays of violence from early childhood and on probably isn’t good. My gut feeling when I’m at a gun store and see someone trying to buy their favorite weapon in call of duty is that this is a moron and maybe should choose not to exercise his right to do that. But I don’t think the data backs up this feeling. “Ban X to solve our problems” formulations are almost never even close to true and rarely stand to even cursory examination. Playing Call of Duty doesn’t make one a murderer, listening to rap doesn’t make one a murderer, no more than owning a firearm does.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by G1911

Even if the suppositions were true, I would be as against banning music, films and games and ignoring the first amendment as I am against ignoring the second amendment.

I don’t think there’s much of a connection though. Violence has been prevalent in art and literature since the very beginning. Homer and Hesiod, the first western literature are replete with it. Fiction tends to always go in the most shocking direction. I think there is much to be said for the time when people spoke properly, wore suits when they went anywhere in public, and would be horrified to hear the words common on radio said so publicly. The current form, in which there are less social restrictions on people’s choices and lives than ever before certainly has not made for a happier youth, with depression being almost trendy among my generation and the next one. But I don’t think 1) there is a way to have everything perfect and 2) it has not produced much violence, statistically.

In fact, violence went down for the generation of NWA and Call of Duty. Violence has steadily dropped with time until it rocketed in 2020 for reasons that don’t seem to be generational or entertainment related.

My gut feeling would be that flooding kids with displays of violence from early childhood and on probably isn’t good. My gut feeling when I’m at a gun store and see someone trying to buy their favorite weapon in call of duty is that this is a moron and maybe should choose not to exercise his right to do that. But I don’t think the data backs up this feeling. “Ban X to solve our problems” formulations are almost never even close to true and rarely stand to even cursory examination. Playing Call of Duty doesn’t make one a murderer, listening to rap doesn’t make one a murderer, no more than owning a firearm does.

real life is still far different than video game world as well...they were saying violence was caused by early nintendo games and early IBM games which were 100x or more less real looking then todays games....perhaps 100 years from now in the meta verse if you can touch and feel everything we can revisit...

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

The question I do have for the pro-gun side, is: what is the advantage to having legal guns that can shoot 100+ rounds per minute? If the concern is gun for safety and protection, I have to think a 10-12 round gun would cover 99.99% of safety threats - indeed, even our police who are put in harm's way daily do not walk around with machine guns.

You've fallen into a common misconception. One which is easy to fall into.

It conflates three different things.

Rate of fire - Rounds per minute
Capacity- how many the gun holds
Full vs semi-automatic.

Easiest one first.
Fully automatic=Pull the trigger it shoots till you stop or the ammo runs out.
Semi Automatic= One pull one shot, but you have to pull the trigger for each one. A large percentage of guns are this type. The shotgun my friend has me use for trap shooing is. I just load one at a time to stay within the rules.

Fully automatic - "machine guns" have been heavily controlled since the mid 1930's. Full registration, $200 tax to transfer, very serious background check, some serious legal trouble for not doing things properly. Since those controls were put in place, last I checked there have only been 2-3 incidents involving a legally owned full auto weapon.

And that moves right into the "police don't have machine guns"...One of those incidents was a law officer using a department machine gun that he was legally allowed to use. Just not at all the way he used it.

Most guns, depending on how they were made and local laws hold less than 10 rounds. If you're in a place that allows higher capacity maybe as many as 30. Much more isn't common, but is possible.

So yes, you may be able to fire hundreds of rounds a minute, but you'll be out in a few seconds. And usually anything past the first one isn't going where you want it to go. (Yes, I've tried, shot 1 was pretty good. They said I did well to get number 2 on the paper, and the backstop fortunately caught number 3 - It was good that was all I was allowed for that exercise. Could I have done better with practice? sure. But anything outside the target is pretty much a fail.

Oh, and a huge percentage of regular hunting rifles are semi-auto. They just don't look "tactical" so the crazy people don't usually buy them. In some cases they have the exact same inner machinery as the ones everyone wants to ban.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by steve B

You've fallen into a common misconception. One which is easy to fall into.

It conflates three different things.

Rate of fire - Rounds per minute
Capacity- how many the gun holds
Full vs semi-automatic.

Easiest one first.
Fully automatic=Pull the trigger it shoots till you stop or the ammo runs out.
Semi Automatic= One pull one shot, but you have to pull the trigger for each one. A large percentage of guns are this type. The shotgun my friend has me use for trap shooing is. I just load one at a time to stay within the rules.

Fully automatic - "machine guns" have been heavily controlled since the mid 1930's. Full registration, $200 tax to transfer, very serious background check, some serious legal trouble for not doing things properly. Since those controls were put in place, last I checked there have only been 2-3 incidents involving a legally owned full auto weapon.

And that moves right into the "police don't have machine guns"...One of those incidents was a law officer using a department machine gun that he was legally allowed to use. Just not at all the way he used it.

Most guns, depending on how they were made and local laws hold less than 10 rounds. If you're in a place that allows higher capacity maybe as many as 30. Much more isn't common, but is possible.

So yes, you may be able to fire hundreds of rounds a minute, but you'll be out in a few seconds. And usually anything past the first one isn't going where you want it to go. (Yes, I've tried, shot 1 was pretty good. They said I did well to get number 2 on the paper, and the backstop fortunately caught number 3 - It was good that was all I was allowed for that exercise. Could I have done better with practice? sure. But anything outside the target is pretty much a fail.

Oh, and a huge percentage of regular hunting rifles are semi-auto. They just don't look "tactical" so the crazy people don't usually buy them. In some cases they have the exact same inner machinery as the ones everyone wants to ban.

Also, pertaining to semi-automatic pistols:

The way gun-controllers term it, a double-action revolver (the common, every-day revolver), is a semi-automatic weapon. Think about it; one pull of the trigger, one shot out of the barrel. You pull the trigger again, another bullet comes out of the barrel (each time you pull the trigger, the cylinder automatically rotates until another round is lined up with the barrel). Nothing else needs to be done; you just keep pulling the trigger until the cylinder is empty. Current revolvers hold up to eight rounds, the same as a Colt M1911 .45 caliber semi-auto (there are some that hold even more). Current semi-automatics, like a Glock-17 (the first Glock ever made in the 1980s), holds a standard capacity of 17 rounds. The Left wants to ban all magazines that hold more than 10 rounds; that would effectively ban nearly all Glock handguns, along with many others that hold more than 10 rounds as the standard capacity.

Also, The Left wants to ban the AR-15. Guess what round the AR-15 shoots.....the .22 caliber; a round that Pres Biden apparently has no problem with. He just wants to ban the AR-15 because it looks dangerous. Then, he wants to ban the 9mm (NATO standard) round, that the vast majority of common, every-day pistols (in the world) shoots, because it, in his words "blows the lung out of the body." I guess he's never heard of a .357 magnum, or .44 magnum (think Dirty Harry), or a 10mm (will take down a bear, or even a .50 caliber Desert Eagle. All of those are handguns, and the first two (magnums) are revolvers. It just all proves that The Left doesn't have a clue of what they're talking about!

Steve

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Steve D

Also, pertaining to semi-automatic pistols:

The way gun-controllers term it, a double-action revolver (the common, every-day revolver), is a semi-automatic weapon. Think about it; one pull of the trigger, one shot out of the barrel. You pull the trigger again, another bullet comes out of the barrel (each time you pull the trigger, the cylinder automatically rotates until another round is lined up with the barrel). Nothing else needs to be done; you just keep pulling the trigger until the cylinder is empty. Current revolvers hold up to eight rounds, the same as a Colt M1911 .45 caliber semi-auto (there are some that hold even more). Current semi-automatics, like a Glock-17 (the first Glock ever made in the 1980s), holds a standard capacity of 17 rounds. The Left wants to ban all magazines that hold more than 10 rounds; that would effectively ban nearly all Glock handguns, along with many others that hold more than 10 rounds as the standard capacity.

Also, The Left wants to ban the AR-15. Guess what round the AR-15 shoots.....the .22 caliber; a round that Pres Biden apparently has no problem with. He just wants to ban the AR-15 because it looks dangerous. Then, he wants to ban the 9mm (NATO standard) round, that the vast majority of common, every-day pistols (in the world) shoots, because it, in his words "blows the lung out of the body." I guess he's never heard of a .357 magnum, or .44 magnum (think Dirty Harry), or a 10mm (will take down a bear, or even a .50 caliber Desert Eagle. All of those are handguns, and the first two (magnums) are revolvers. It just all proves that The Left doesn't have a clue of what they're talking about!

Steve

It is usually amusing to look at their quotes or see what they term “high power”. A 9mm is extremely popular because it is generally seen as at or near the bottom of the power scale for a cartridge that can be effective in self defense. 5.56 is also about as low-power as cartridges in its class can get.

Really controversial is to debate .45 ACP vs 9mm Parabellum. As a classy feller, I always carry .25 ACP though.