Now is not the time to talk about gun control (4 Viewers)

[brandon]

T&P

Redirect Notice

 

[MT15]

If people would keep their guns in gun safes, they aren’t getting stolen. I’ve seen a gun safe at a relative‘s house, you‘d need a crane to lift it.

Nice to see you, Semper, stick around!

 

[SamAndreas]

Dude someone would have to get into my house, through the security system, into the basement, into my gun room and then into my safes. I am very responsible with my gun collection. I get you don’t understand, I don’t understand your position either. I have friends that have over 1000 guns.

Yes, I think your friends with a 1000 guns each are doing more to keep dangerous guns out of circulation than all the gun laws that we have on the books are doing.

I think we would accomplish more if we did noting for 20 years to allow this issue time to air out. The more we do the more ground we lose. Fifty years of losing more, the more we try, is enough to convince me that it's time to stop and reassess whether this a direct acting, or a reverse acting function.

If it's reverse acting, and I think it's reverse acting, then we need a whole new plan. Permanently scrap the old plan.

Fifty years ago we were ahead of where we are now, then someone said let do something about that which was not as bad as it is now. It's been growing worse ever since.

The first time I remember having a conversation about gun control I was in a tree with my cousin. A tree out front of my grandmother's house. A weeping willow tree.

It's turned quite a few Democrats into Republican over the years. It won't turn me but that's because I'm stubborn. But I've lost friends over gun laws, and that loss was for naught.

 

[Semper]

I have always said if liberals would take the time to learn about firearms they would understand a little better and then be able to work with gun owners to make more common sense laws. I was willing to give ground, mentioned it on here and one of the first responses I got was something to the effect of “ok you can have 3 of these type flaunts only, or you have too many guns. “. The good ole give an inch they take a foot. So of course you get gun owners who won’t give an inch.

 

[insidejob]

I have always said if liberals would take the time to learn about firearms they would understand a little better and then be able to work with gun owners to make more common sense laws. I was willing to give ground, mentioned it on here and one of the first responses I got was something to the effect of “ok you can have 3 of these type flaunts only, or you have too many guns. “. The good ole give an inch they take a foot. So of course you get gun owners who won’t give an inch.

I'm a liberal who has been around gun owners my whole life with my uncle and cousins and I have zero problem with people owning guns for hunting and self-protection. I don't even care how many - as long as someone is certifying the gun owner and guns at least as regularly as your car needs a brake tag.

 

[Semper]

I'm a liberal who has been around gun owners my whole life with my uncle and cousins and I have zero problem with people owning guns for hunting and self-protection. I don't even care how many - as long as someone is certifying the gun owner and guns at least as regularly as your car needs a brake tag.

If you look up any of my old posts about guns you will see I regularly call for required training. If you own a firearm for hunting not so much. But if you are going to carry a gun on your person the training should be mandatory on a yearly basis. Should be standard for the entire country. State controlled like a drivers license but the standards are set by the federal government. You commit a crime with a firearm there mandatory sentences. For instance if you use it but don’t fire it, 5 years no parole. You fire the gun 10 years no parole. Kill someone and it’s life. Kill someone and there is irrefutable proof death penalty. Your court case and appeal is fast tracked.

 

[insidejob]

If you look up any of my old posts about guns you will see I regularly call for required training. If you own a firearm for hunting not so much. But if you are going to carry a gun on your person the training should be mandatory on a yearly basis. Should be standard for the entire country. State controlled like a drivers license but the standards are set by the federal government. You commit a crime with a firearm there mandatory sentences. For instance if you use it but don’t fire it, 5 years no parole. You fire the gun 10 years no parole. Kill someone and it’s life. Kill someone and there is irrefutable proof death penalty. Your court case and appeal is fast tracked.

I'm well aware of your stance on guns and your training and safety with them. I was quoting your post to make my stance clear for those who don't know, not to insinuate that you didn't agree with what I was posting.

 

[brandon]

Dude someone would have to get into my house, through the security system, into the basement, into my gun room and then into my safes. I am very responsible with my gun collection. I get you don’t understand, I don’t understand your position either. I have friends that have over 1000 guns.

They don’t need 1,000 guns, either.

I have always said if liberals would take the time to learn about firearms they would understand a little better and then be able to work with gun owners to make more common sense laws.

What isn’t common sense about saying you don’t need more guns than you could actually use for hunting, home defense, etc?

Let’s say you need 4 different guns for hunting because you hunt various game throughout the year at different times. Then you want to keep a gun by you and your wife’s nightstand for self defense. And you want to keep one in 4 rooms of your house in case of a break-in where you aren’t in your room. Then let’s say you have 2 kids who also hunt and need 4 guns each, and you and your wife also concealed carry at all times.

All of that is still ten fewer guns than you actually own.

You don’t need 30 guns. THAT’S common sense.

 

[SamAndreas]

I have always said if liberals would take the time to learn about firearms they would understand a little better and then be able to work with gun owners to make more common sense laws. I was willing to give ground, mentioned it on here and one of the first responses I got was something to the effect of “ok you can have 3 of these type flaunts only, or you have too many guns. “. The good ole give an inch they take a foot. So of course you get gun owners who won’t give an inch.

I'm a liberal. So some have.

 

[Semper]

And this is why it will always be a stalemate. I am clearly on the side of guns but willing to make concessions. What is your answer? Take away more. I don’t feel the need to justify why I own as many guns as I do but I will give you this. I own 8 different shotguns for hunting. 1 is for Turkey and is a 10gauge one is for deer hunting and slugs. The rest are for hunting different birds. Duck, goose, pheasant, dove. All require different chokes, barrel sizes and caliber. So when someone is ignorant about firearms I don’t want them justifying how many guns I can own.

 

[brandon]

And this is why it will always be a stalemate. I am clearly on the side of guns but willing to make concessions. What is your answer? Take away more.

So what concession are you offering?

I’m saying you should be allowed to have guns to hunt and you should be allowed to have guns for home defense. I’m also saying that you don’t need 30 guns, and I feel confident in saying that, as I get by with exactly zero guns just fine. It’s a want, not a need.

And since it’s a want and not a need, it needs to be balanced against the societal harm that it does to allow someone to have 30 guns.

So again I’ll ask, what concession is it you’re offering?

 

[insidejob]

And this is why it will always be a stalemate. I am clearly on the side of guns but willing to make concessions. What is your answer? Take away more. I don’t feel the need to justify why I own as many guns as I do but I will give you this. I own 8 different shotguns for hunting. 1 is for Turkey and is a 10gauge one is for deer hunting and slugs. The rest are for hunting different birds. Duck, goose, pheasant, dove. All require different chokes, barrel sizes and caliber. So when someone is ignorant about firearms I don’t want them justifying how many guns I can own.

I'm all for people having as many guns as they have a need for. You can obviously state the need and what weapons are used for it. If you can do that, have as many guns as you want. But I just think you should have to account for your weapons and state the need every so often.

 

[Semper]

So what concession are you offering?

I’m saying you should be allowed to have guns to hunt and you should be allowed to have guns for home defense. I’m also saying that you don’t need 30 guns, and I feel confident in saying that, as I get by with exactly zero guns just fine. It’s a want, not a need.

And since it’s a want and not a need, it needs to be balanced against the societal harm that it does to allow someone to have 30 guns.

So again I’ll ask, what concession is it you’re offering?

Umm required license to own guns. And I explained why I have multiple shotguns. I have multiple rifles for the same reasons. Different critters different calibers etc.

 

[Semper]

At the end of the day there is no law requiring me to justify the quantity of firearms I own. You may not like it and honestly that’s your problem. I own a lot of handguns as well. Different sizes for different situations, hunting etc.

Next thing you’re going to tell me you want to limit how much ammo I can have or how much ammo I can manufacture for my own use.

 

[brandon]

At the end of the day there is no law requiring me to justify the quantity of firearms I own. You may not like it and honestly that’s your problem. I own a lot of handguns as well. Different sizes for different situations, hunting etc.

Next thing you’re going to tell me you want to limit how much ammo I can have or how much ammo I can manufacture for my own use.

No, we’re talking about how our country has a problem with gun violence and what sorts of laws we could create that could help.

So yes, you’re right that there is no law requiring you to justify your arsenal. That’s the point—maybe there should be.

 

[Semper]

Maybe start with Chicago, New York etc. It’s cities like that where you will find the most gun crime. Not from collectors like myself.

 

[Semper]

Now just like in normal life a liberal pushes a gun owner into a corner and he no longer wants to make any concessions and will continue to vote for no change. You may have your echo chamber back I am out.

 

[brandon]

Maybe start with Chicago, New York etc. It’s cities like that where you will find the most gun crime. Not from collectors like myself.

Expected. The whites can be trusted with a thousand-gun arsenal, but let's make sure we regulate guns on the blacks.

"I didn't even mention race!"

Now just like in normal life a liberal pushes a gun owner into a corner and he no longer wants to make any concessions and will continue to vote for no change. You may have your echo chamber back I am out.

How did I push you? By daring to suggest that our current gun laws aren't effective in preventing gun violence (they aren't), and maybe there could be some new ones that could help (there absolutely could), and maybe you wouldn't love them all but could find it in your heart to make a sacrifice for the greater good (who am I kidding)?

 

[JRad]

You may have your echo chamber back I am out.

I don’t think that’s a fair statement when only like 2 people are really pushing back on you.

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said, and I think the training you mentioned is an area where there is (or at least should be) a great deal of agreement. I feel like responsible gun owners (like you), and others who want guns better controlled would both see that move as a layup.

I had hunter education way back in the day (probably 98?), and they taught you to respect the firearm - I think that would be a highly beneficial move. In my mind, I liken these steps to getting a drivers license.

Another viewpoint I hold is with the “need” thing. (Follow me here) I agree, but not for the same reason as most. I really just see it as a massive waste of money - I didn’t pay for either of my guns, or I wouldn’t own one. I just don’t think it’s a justified cost. But…that’s the thing with collectibles, the worthiness is in the eye of the collector. No one needs 100 Air Jordan’s, rare coins, Pop! bobbles, etc, but people do it. Now, I realize no one’s Retro 12 Jordan’s are going to be used in a miser if they’re stolen, but the people investing all this money in guns aren’t just leaving them out in the open to get picked off. They’re the least of my concern.


Note: I’m a bit out of it on pain meds right now, so apologies if anything was super rambly or made no sense