Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Right to bear arms?


  • Please log in to reply
321 replies to this topic

#1 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,290 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 02:13 AM

The gun lobby is one of the strongest and most influential groups in the country.

Will anything change with more and more tragedies occurring? With today being the worst.

The old quote from Charlton Heston "... from my cold dead hands".

:popcorn1:


Posted Image

#2 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,450 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:20 PM

to counter the "if the government can have one, i should e able to have one" i say "ok, but you need to train for at least 5 weeks and be totally physically, mentally, and technically trained to use one, the same as a soldier"


For me, i do t see how any civilian needs an assault type weapon for anything. Let everyone have their pistols and rifles, with the full training caveat

#3 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,361 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:27 PM

"Assault" type. Arbitrary designation.

I always find it stale to initiate political agendas off the back of a tragedy, but it always happens.

The only thing that will change by changing gun control laws is who has more guns, and how many victim zones we set up.

#4 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,450 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:31 PM

Less guns, less killing.

Fact or whatever. Irrefutable.

#5 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,361 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:57 PM

Wrong.

#6 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,450 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 01:59 PM

Nuh uh! You are!

#7 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,361 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 02:01 PM

I an article that shows correlation/causation. gun sales all time hig. Gun crimes steady declining trend. Pure coincidence?

#8 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,450 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 02:04 PM

Less guns, less SHOOTINGS

#9 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,361 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 02:10 PM

:facepalm:

#10 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,651 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 02:40 PM

I don't have it in me today to argue this, so I'll just say this: I don't believe guns were the problem with happened yesterday - they might have made it easier for him to carry out his horrifying plan, but they aren't the problem. A profoundly fearful and sick society is the problem. Yesterday was a symptom of that...

#11 little frog

little frog
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,626 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 06:27 PM

Mental illness and personality disorders are not taken as seriously as they should be. An increase in population is going to increase the number of people suffering from these issues. If these folks are not treated properly, or just medicated and sent home this increases the chances that they will snap. They do not have the coping skills to live a normal life like we wish they did. There are always signs that they are not coping well.

Also, Brianne posted a very telling list of mass murderers who were on some sort of psychiatric drug when they snapped. These drugs are not a cure all, we can't just drug people and send them on their way. Many of these drugs actually have the opposite affect and do not calm the patient. They are often more irritable and irrational on the drug then they were off the drug. Where are the doctors that should be monitoring these patients? Why won't insurance companies pay for more than a week or two in a psych hospital? They already know these drugs can up the chances of the patient committing suicide. Drug companies are more interested in profits then cures, they also know these drugs can be dangerous.

Then there is this, why, if you know your child is unstable, would you have guns around your house and teach the unstable child how to use them? Makes no sense to me.

#12 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,290 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 08:48 PM

Piers Morgan: 'How Many More Kids Have To Die' Before New Gun Control Laws (VIDEO)


http://cnn.com/video...ct-shooting.cnn

#13 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,361 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 09:05 PM

Everyone talk at once. Piers, go ahead and yell over everyone and say "nonsense" again.

#14 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,290 posts

Posted 15 December 2012 - 10:08 PM

Everyone talk at once. Piers, go ahead and yell over everyone and say "nonsense" again.


:lol:

#15 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,450 posts

Posted 16 December 2012 - 01:53 PM

I changed my mind. Everyone should be able to have guns.

#16 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 17 December 2012 - 03:40 AM

Ten Arguments Gun Advocates Make, and Why They're Wrong

There has been yet another mass shooting, something that now seems to occur on a monthly basis. Every time another tragedy like this occurs, gun advocates make the same arguments about why we can't possibly do anything to restrict the weaponization of our cuure. Here's a guide to what they'll be saying in the coming days:

1. Now isn't the time to talk about guns.

We're going to hear this over and over, and not just from gun advocates; Jay Carney said it to White House reporters today. But if we're not going to talk about it now, when are we going to talk about it? After Sandy hit the East Coast, no one said, "Now isn't the time to talk about disaster preparedness; best leave that until it doesn't seem so urgent." When there's a terrorist attack, no one says, "Now isn't the time to talk about terrorism." Now is exactly the time.

2. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Maybe, but people with guns kill many, many more people than they would if they didn't have guns, and guns designed to kill as many people as possible. We don't know if the murderer in Newtown was suffering from a suicidal depression, but many mass shooters in the past were. And guess what? People suffer from suicidal depression everywhere in the world. People get angry and upset everywhere in the world. But there aren't mass shootings every few weeks in England or Costa Rica or Japan, and the reason is that people in those places who have these impulses don't have an easy way to access lethal weapons and unlimited ammunition. But if you want to kill large numbers of people and you happen to be an American, you'll find it easy to do.

3. If only everybody around was armed, an ordinary civilian could take out a mass killer before he got too far.

If that were true, then how come it never happens? The truth is that in a chaotic situation, even highly trained police officers often kill bystanders. The idea that some accountant who spent a few hours at the range would suddenly turn into Jason Bourne and take out the killer without doing more harm than good has no basis in reality.

4. We don't need more laws, we just need to enforce the laws we have.

The people who say this are the same ones who fight to make sure that existing laws are as weak and ineffectual as possible. Our current gun laws are riddled with loopholes and allow people to amass enormous arsenals of military-style weapons with virtually no restrictions.

5. Criminals will always find a way to get guns no matter what measures we take, so what's the point?

The question isn't whether we could snap our fingers and make every gun disappear. It's whether we can make it harder for criminals to get guns, and harder for an unbalanced person with murderous intent to kill so many people. The goal is to reduce violence as much as possible. There's no other problem for which we'd say if we can't solve it completely and forever we shouldn't even try.

6. The Constitution says I have a right to own guns.

Yes it does, but for some reason gun advocates think that the right to bear arms is the only constitutional right that is virtually without limit. You have the right to practice your religion, but not if your religion involves human sacrifice. You have the right to free speech, but you can still be prosecuted for incitement or conspiracy, and you can be sued for libel. Every right is subject to limitation when it begins to threaten others, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that even though there is an individual right to gun ownership, the government can put reasonable restrictions on that right.

And we all know that if this shooter turns out to have a Muslim name, plenty of Americans, including plenty of gun owners, will be more than happy to give up all kinds of rights in the name of fighting terrorism. Have the government read my email? Have my cell phone company turn over my call records? Check which books I'm taking out of the library? Make me take my shoes off before getting on a plane, just because some idiot tried to blow up his sneakers? Sure, do what you've got to do. But don't make it harder to buy thousands of rounds of ammunition, because if we couldn't do that we'd no longer be free.

7. Widespread gun ownership is a guarantee against tyranny.

If that had anything to do with contemporary life, then mature democracies would be constantly overthrown by despots. But they aren't. We shouldn't write laws based on the fantasies of conspiracy theorists.

8. Guns are a part of American culture.

Indeed they are, but so are a lot of things, and that tells us nothing about whether they're good or bad and how we want to treat them going forward. Slavery was a part of American culture for a couple of hundred years, but eventually we decided it had to go.

9. The American people don't want more gun control.

The truth is that when public opinion polls have asked Americans about specific measures, the public is in favor of a much more restrictive gun regime than we have now. Significant majorities would like to see the assault weapons ban reinstated, mandatory licensing and training for all gun owners, significant waiting periods for purchases, and host of other restrictions (there are more details here). In many cases, gun owners themselves support more restrictions than we currently have.

10. Having movie theaters and schools full of kids periodically shot up is just a price we should be willing to pay if it means I get to play with guns and pretend I'm Wyatt Earp.

OK, that's actually an argument gun advocates don't make. But it's the truth that lies beneath all their other arguments. All that we suffer because of the proliferation of guns—these horrifying tragedies, the 30,000 Americans who are killed every year with guns—for gun advocates, it's unfortunate, but it's a price they're willing to pay. If only they'd have the guts to say it.

https://prospect.org...hy-theyre-wrong

#17 Julius

Julius
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,544 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 03:49 AM

I've never fully understood the "right to bear arms" and grew up in a country without any guns to speak of, even in police hands. But it's clearly a value deeply entrenched in our history and constitution so it can't just be dismissed.

It's entirely possible that this terrible event leads to some new gun legislation, and entirely impossible that it does diddlysquat to prevent future shootings.

#18 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 17 December 2012 - 04:56 AM

I think better treatment for people who need it is a major step toward preventing it from happening again.

But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't also go ahead and ban high capacity clips, strips, and drums. I can't think of any reason why a person would need more than 10 shots at a clip. Even if you're bird hunting, 10 ought to be more than enough.

#19 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,045 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 05:05 AM

What does limiting a clip to 10 rounds matter when people can change a clip in less than a second?

warning, put your speakers on silence. The music in the youtube is outrageously annoying.



#20 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 17 December 2012 - 05:07 AM

What does limiting a clip to 10 rounds matter when people can change a clip in less than a second?

warning, put your speakers on silence. The music in the youtube is outrageously annoying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI


it slows them down for about 3 seconds after every 10 shots which is better than 100 sprayed at you rapid fire.

#21 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,793 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 05:38 AM

Magazines are not Clips.....
http://www.thegunzon...clips-mags.html

#22 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 17 December 2012 - 05:51 AM

strips, clips, drums, magazines... what else is there?

high speed, high-capacity firearms do more harm to society than good.

#23 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,450 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 11:35 AM

Anybody else bored?

#24 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,290 posts

Posted 18 December 2012 - 08:53 PM

Gun sales spike amid talk of new gun-control measures

#25 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 18 December 2012 - 09:01 PM

Posted Image

#26 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,505 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 18 December 2012 - 09:02 PM

Posted Image

#27 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,505 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 19 December 2012 - 09:45 PM

Posted Image

#28 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 20 December 2012 - 12:48 AM

my brilliant single female lawyer friend thinks she came up with an answer, and I think she might be right...

INSURANCE. You have to purchase insurance with every gun, and show it every time you buy ammo.

Since this country is all about money, when it comes down to it, that ought to be a great solution.

#29 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,505 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 20 December 2012 - 01:19 AM

do you really think this kid had that gun legally?

sorry but insurance does nothing but give regular law abiding citizens more red tape to cut through to own what is their right to own. not to mention cost...in a country with classes at war with each other you would make it impossible for lower income families to own guns to protect themselves.

although we can prolly get a social program rolled into welfare so the government would pay for it depending on your income

#30 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,290 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:10 AM

I say charge a 100% tax on each piece of ammo/bullet.

Raises tax revenue also.

#31 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,290 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:11 AM

And ban hollow point tip bullets.

#32 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,361 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:14 AM

I agree. What an incentive to boost press prices and learn an old trade.

#33 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,505 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:15 AM

lolmericas answer for everything...ban it or tax it :lol:

#34 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,361 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:16 AM

We need the revenue.

#35 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,361 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:17 AM

Sewers are filling up quick. We should have a 25 cent tax on flushes. 10 cents more on wiping.

#36 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,361 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:17 AM

Posted Image

#37 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:18 AM

it's really unfortunate that this country is based upon contracts and litigation...

but gun advocates don't seem to contributing JACK-SQUAT to the solution, so you get what you get.

#38 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,505 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:19 AM

Sewers are filling up quick. We should have a 25 cent tax on flushes. 10 cents more on wiping.


:rolling:

#39 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,361 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:19 AM

Posted Image

#40 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,505 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:22 AM

it's really unfortunate that this country is based upon contracts and litigation...

but gun advocates don't seem to contributing JACK-SQUAT to the solution, so you get what you get.


yea...dont blame the hammer...blame the nail

#41 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,361 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:23 AM

yea...dont blame the hammer...blame the nail


Better yet. Blame the board.

#42 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,505 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:24 AM

hahaha...fuckin board!! i demand to be compensated!

#43 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 20 December 2012 - 04:13 AM

I blame the bullet, actually. the hollow tipped ones especially. WTF you need those for?

regular bullets can pass right through and you can go about the rest of your day.

#44 capt_morgan

capt_morgan
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,505 posts
  • Locationatlantic ocean

Posted 20 December 2012 - 04:42 AM

the rest of ur day :lol:

#45 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,465 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 12:43 PM

my brilliant single female lawyer friend thinks she came up with an answer, and I think she might be right...


Wow she must be brilliant to have come up with an answer like that, it's just mind boggling that nobody has ever thought of it before now.

#46 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,290 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 02:45 PM

I agree. What an incentive to boost press prices and learn an old trade.



Ammunition trade tops $4 billion yet little regulation to control and keep track of who bullets are sold to


Would be 4 billion in new tax revenue.

I am thinking each bullet costs between .25 to .75 may be more. But a tax per bullet would add up pretty quickly.

#47 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,651 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 03:16 PM

And ban hollow point tip bullets.


Of all of the rhetoric out there on this issue, on both sides, this has always made the least sense to me.

In the terribly unfortunate instance in which someone with a gun shoots someone, they're less likely to pass all the way through and harm someone else.

#48 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,651 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 03:19 PM

I say charge a 100% tax on each piece of ammo/bullet.


Why?

Is having to pay a tax going to stop someone from shooting someone else?

#49 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,290 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 03:29 PM

Why?

Is having to pay a tax going to stop someone from shooting someone else?


My real plan is that Bullets should cost A LOT more. Like Chris Rock said a long time ago. Bullets should cost $5 THOUSAND dollars a piece.

Then when some one gets shot 10 times, you can say, man, they shot him with like 50K worth of bullets. He must have been done something to deserve being shot.




I do not see this happening because it is not realistic, although the ammo suppliers would love to raise their prices. But taxing each bullet, may help with some regulation around selling bullets.


And NO, having this tax is not going to stop people from shooting someone else. And did I state that it would?

Logistically, it is the easiest thing to implement.



As for the Hollow point bullets. Those are used to cause the most damage. No one wants deer that has been shot with a hollow point bullet, because of the damage to the deer. I just feel these bullets are designed for military purposes, not hunting or recreational use. Disagree?

#50 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,293 posts

Posted 20 December 2012 - 03:37 PM

As for the Hollow point bullets. Those are used to cause the most damage. No one wants deer that has been shot with a hollow point bullet, because of the damage to the deer. I just feel these bullets are designed for military purposes, not hunting or recreational use. Disagree?


Disagree. Hunters want bullets that will put a deer on the ground. Fragmenting bullets do that much better than jacketed bullets. If your shot placement is where it should be, there is no damage to consumable meat.