Gun ownership poll

Carter08 · #1 06-10-2022, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cannonballsun

In that scenario, how many of the 1000 good guys will accidentally shoot another good guy ? There'd be bullets flying all over the place. Doesn't sound too good to me.
Cops already worry about dealing with armed good guys at a live shooter scene. You've got a gun, how do the cops know you're a good guy ?
Anyway, the cops shot and killed the shooter in Dayton in 30 seconds. 9 people were already dead.
In Buffalo, at the grocery store, there was a good guy with a gun on the scene. He was a retired ex-cop. He was out gunned and killed.

Agreed. More guns is not the solution that makes sense to me. I realize it does for others.

No one ever makes the point that guns do the killing so I don�t know why the argument is always repeated that it�s the person behind the gun that is the real problem. I think everyone understands that and wishes we could cure all deranged individuals. Since we probably can�t, it�s just that if it were harder to get a gun that could do so much rapid shooting or harder to get a gun at all, maybe we�d have a few more stabbings on our hands as opposed to mass shootings.

On the second amendment, similar to the first amendment, the freedom is always subject to reasonable restrictions. We have freedom of speech, but we can�t shout fire in a crowded theater. We have the right to bear arms, but we can�t walk around with bazookas.

G1911 · #2 06-10-2022, 06:11 PM

This loops back to an earlier main point. If we know it is the person, not the tool, what legislation on the tool are we proposing that is not taking peoples guns or banning guns that will reduce homicides and shootings?

Is there a compromise proposition that could be reached?

Carter08 · #3 06-10-2022, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

This loops back to an earlier main point. If we know it is the person, not the tool, what legislation on the tool are we proposing that is not taking peoples guns or banning guns that will reduce homicides and shootings?

Is there a compromise proposition that could be reached?

Obviously a tough call because what�s already out there is out there and what�s restricted tomorrow can still be obtained. It seems like trying to restrict access, especially younger person access, to rapid fire, large count magazines would do some good. Not even positive that would be a net benefit. I think both sides want less mass shootings. Wish there was a technological solution.

G1911 · #4 06-10-2022, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carter08

Obviously a tough call because what�s already out there is out there and what�s restricted tomorrow can still be obtained. It seems like trying to restrict access, especially younger person access, to rapid fire, large count magazines would do some good.

Does this mean a ban on magazine possession of magazines holding over X number of rounds, and a ban on semi-automatic firearms for under Y age(21?)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carter08

I think both sides want less mass shootings.

Amen.

Carter08 · #5 06-10-2022, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Does this mean a ban on magazine possession of magazines holding over X number of rounds, and a ban on semi-automatic firearms for under Y age(21?)?

Amen.

Agree with the amen. As for the former, I have no clue. I think it�s responsible gun owners that will actually come up with some good ideas.

G1911 · #6 06-10-2022, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carter08

Agree with the amen. As for the former, I have no clue. I think it�s responsible gun owners that will actually come up with some good ideas.

Responsible gun owners are against these ideas though; beyond the discussions of what might be effective in controlling a small number of psycho�s or the Constitution, criminalizing ourselves or subsegments of ourselves is not very popular in the gun community, as a ban on semi-auto�s and/or magazines will do, for the obvious reasons of common sense self-interest. Their propositions are more in the mental health realm, and the view that while these events are horrible, there is no reason to think any legislation is going to get rid of homicide. Most gun owners do not see why those who have not misused it should be criminalized, particularly when other tools are used in more murders (you are more likely to be bludgeoned than to be shot with a rifle, semi-auto and scary or single shot and not scary). It is exceptionally difficult to endorse a proposition that makes some of us sudden felons for having legally purchased and owning what we have.

Carter08 · #7 06-10-2022, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Responsible gun owners are against these ideas though; beyond the discussions of what might be effective in controlling a small number of psycho�s or the Constitution, criminalizing ourselves or subsegments of ourselves is not very popular in the gun community, as a ban on semi-auto�s and/or magazines will do, for the obvious reasons of common sense self-interest. Their propositions are more in the mental health realm, and the view that while these events are horrible, there is no reason to think any legislation is going to get rid of homicide. Most gun owners do not see why those who have not misused it should be criminalized, particularly when other tools are used in more murders (you are more likely to be bludgeoned than to be shot with a rifle, semi-auto and scary or single shot and not scary). It is exceptionally difficult to endorse a proposition that makes some of us sudden felons for having legally purchased and owning what we have.

There�s been no such thing as a mass bludgeoning as far as I know. I wouldn�t be scared if my fellow citizens walked around with baseball bats. Allow them to freely walk around with guns, not good as far as I�m concerned. Too many arguments result in people making poor decisions. Would rather have them make those poor decisions without a gun in hand.

CollectingAmericasPastime · #8 06-11-2022, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carter08

Agree with the amen. As for the former, I have no clue. I think it�s responsible gun owners that will actually come up with some good ideas.

What if responsible gun owners told you the solution is more firearms in the hands of good guys to stop inevitable bad guys with guns? Qualified military personnel/veterans, for example, staitioned at our schools. What if they said these proposed laws only restrict law abiding citizens, considering murder is illegal already yet bad guys still commit murder with a plethora of "tools"?

Carter08 · #9 06-11-2022, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

What if responsible gun owners told you the solution is more firearms in the hands of good guys to stop inevitable bad guys with guns? Qualified military personnel/veterans, for example, staitioned at our schools. What if they said these proposed laws only restrict law abiding citizens, considering murder is illegal already yet bad guys still commit murder with a plethora of "tools"?

That I said before seems like a non-starter. Too many good guys make dumb decisions. If there isn�t a desire to try to restrict high capacity guns from bad guys maybe there is no way to agree on something.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
WTB Comiskey (ownership years card) for evolving HOF set.	Misunderestimated	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T	1	01-02-2020 08:50 PM
One more way to ruin the hobby - fractional ownership	Throttlesteer	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	49	08-14-2019 02:19 PM
Help determining ownership status of several high profile items	Sean1125	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	5	08-29-2015 10:42 AM
Ownership of old photographs	theantiquetiger	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	5	08-17-2011 02:43 PM
Scan Ownership	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	3	12-14-2005 01:10 PM