At 12/7/19 07:06 PM, EdyKel wrote: Not sure how long this topic will last, since the last one was locked.

Personally, I think everyone has the right to own a gun, but it should be regulated, and people shouldn't be allowed to own any gun that doesn't serve a practical purpose of self defense, sporting, or hunting - within reason.

At 12/7/19 07:36 PM, Gario wrote: Gun rights and gun control is... complicated.

On the one hand, fewer guns being readily availablenwould definitely result in fewer gun deaths (even if only in suicides). There is definitely a problem with having guns being so readily available, and it makes it so much easier to kill large numbers of people. There's just no denying that.

On the other hand, gun control advocates often don't know what the heck they're doing, and often propose policy that either would be ineffective ("assault" gun ban, for example, wtf even is that), or propose policy that makes it more difficult for minorities & impoverished people to own a gun (such as mandatory gun training), when they're arguably need it most.

It's not like nothing could be done, but it's not a clean black-and-white issue in America.

At 12/7/19 07:10 PM, Mr-Horror wrote:

At 12/7/19 07:06 PM, EdyKel wrote: Not sure how long this topic will last, since the last one was locked.

Personally, I think everyone has the right to own a gun, but it should be regulated, and people shouldn't be allowed to own any gun that doesn't serve a practical purpose of self defense, sporting, or hunting - within reason.

I can't really support an idea like that, saying they must have a reason to own it, but I do agree with the background checks and felony charges, but law binding people I don't.

At 12/7/19 08:04 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 12/7/19 07:10 PM, Mr-Horror wrote:

At 12/7/19 07:06 PM, EdyKel wrote: Not sure how long this topic will last, since the last one was locked.

Personally, I think everyone has the right to own a gun, but it should be regulated, and people shouldn't be allowed to own any gun that doesn't serve a practical purpose of self defense, sporting, or hunting - within reason.

I can't really support an idea like that, saying they must have a reason to own it, but I do agree with the background checks and felony charges, but law binding people I don't.

I've got into this one argument a long time ago with a gun seller, who argued that there should be no gun regulations, and no limit to the type of weapon a person can buy. Simone in the conversation brought up the idea that nukes should be off limit, but this gun stellar skirted around it to continue to make his case that there should be no gun regulation, and no limit to the type of weapon people can have access to. Basically, this gun seller didn't want to mark the line on when a weapon became nothing more than to be coveted, played with, or to kill mass amounts of people, with no practical use, but overkill and to have.

Today, the US has a ban against automatics (machine guns), and use to have the assault weapon ban. But the latter expired, with gun fanatics, and mass shooters, just itching to have a back door access to owning a fully automatic, that is legal, but unable to argue why they need that type of firearm, other than having. And since the end of the assault weapon ban, all we have seen is a rise in huge mass shooting that have become bigger and more frequent.

So, yes, people should have a reason to own a gun, especially if they have become the mass shooter firearm of choice, and can kill dozens of people in a mere minute.

At 12/7/19 08:13 PM, Mr-Horror wrote:

At 12/7/19 08:04 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 12/7/19 07:10 PM, Mr-Horror wrote:

At 12/7/19 07:06 PM, EdyKel wrote: Not sure how long this topic will last, since the last one was locked.

Personally, I think everyone has the right to own a gun, but it should be regulated, and people shouldn't be allowed to own any gun that doesn't serve a practical purpose of self defense, sporting, or hunting - within reason.

I can't really support an idea like that, saying they must have a reason to own it, but I do agree with the background checks and felony charges, but law binding people I don't.

I've got into this one argument a long time ago with a gun seller, who argued that there should be no gun regulations, and no limit to the type of weapon a person can buy. Simone in the conversation brought up the idea that nukes should be off limit, but this gun stellar skirted around it to continue to make his case that there should be no gun regulation, and no limit to the type of weapon people can have access to. Basically, this gun seller didn't want to mark the line on when a weapon became nothing more than to be coveted, played with, or to kill mass amounts of people, with no practical use, but overkill and to have.

Today, the US has a ban against automatics (machine guns), and use to have the assault weapon ban. But the latter expired, with gun fanatics, and mass shooters, just itching to have a back door access to owning a fully automatic, that is legal, but unable to argue why they need that type of firearm, other than having. And since the end of the assault weapon ban, all we have seen is a rise in that have become bigger and more frequent.

So, yes, people should have a reason to own a gun, especially if they have become the mass shooter firearm of choice, and can kill dozens of people in a mere minute.

Mass shooting are supposedly three or more people dead, but there has been many cases with that happen, but never get reported, there were two school shootings that got 1 news story and no new info on, because they used handguns and one was a transgender, so I can't agree with you.

At 12/7/19 08:18 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 12/7/19 08:13 PM, Mr-Horror wrote:

At 12/7/19 08:04 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 12/7/19 07:10 PM, Mr-Horror wrote:

At 12/7/19 07:06 PM, EdyKel wrote: Not sure how long this topic will last, since the last one was locked.

Personally, I think everyone has the right to own a gun, but it should be regulated, and people shouldn't be allowed to own any gun that doesn't serve a practical purpose of self defense, sporting, or hunting - within reason.

I can't really support an idea like that, saying they must have a reason to own it, but I do agree with the background checks and felony charges, but law binding people I don't.

I've got into this one argument a long time ago with a gun seller, who argued that there should be no gun regulations, and no limit to the type of weapon a person can buy. Simone in the conversation brought up the idea that nukes should be off limit, but this gun stellar skirted around it to continue to make his case that there should be no gun regulation, and no limit to the type of weapon people can have access to. Basically, this gun seller didn't want to mark the line on when a weapon became nothing more than to be coveted, played with, or to kill mass amounts of people, with no practical use, but overkill and to have.

Today, the US has a ban against automatics (machine guns), and use to have the assault weapon ban. But the latter expired, with gun fanatics, and mass shooters, just itching to have a back door access to owning a fully automatic, that is legal, but unable to argue why they need that type of firearm, other than having. And since the end of the assault weapon ban, all we have seen is a rise in that have become bigger and more frequent.

So, yes, people should have a reason to own a gun, especially if they have become the mass shooter firearm of choice, and can kill dozens of people in a mere minute.

Mass shooting are supposedly three or more people dead, but there has been many cases with that happen, but never get reported, there were two school shootings that got 1 news story and no new info on, because they used handguns and one was a transgender, so I can't agree with you.

I'm well aware of that which is why I said "huge mass shooting", and "can kill dozens of people in a mere minute". It's thees that are on the rise. There is not much that can be done with the smaller mass shootings at this time.

At 12/7/19 08:27 PM, Mr-Horror wrote:

At 12/7/19 08:18 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 12/7/19 08:13 PM, Mr-Horror wrote: Mass shooting are supposedly three or more people dead, but there has been many cases with that happen, but never get reported, there were two school shootings that got 1 news story and no new info on, because they used handguns and one was a transgender, so I can't agree with you.

I'm well aware of that which is why I said "huge mass shooting", and "can kill dozens of people in a mere minute". It's thees that are on the rise. There is not much that can be done with the smaller mass shootings at this time.

I'm going to admit I shouldn't have used some of the examples I used, what I ment to say was a lot of mass shooting have happened in states and areas were it gun free or have strict gun laws, California has many restrictions and we had a few, while its much more rare to see Gun free states and open carry areas, have hardly any, that's my problem with gun control, it puts them at a bigger risk.

At 12/7/19 08:45 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 12/7/19 08:27 PM, Mr-Horror wrote:

At 12/7/19 08:18 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 12/7/19 08:13 PM, Mr-Horror wrote: Mass shooting are supposedly three or more people dead, but there has been many cases with that happen, but never get reported, there were two school shootings that got 1 news story and no new info on, because they used handguns and one was a transgender, so I can't agree with you.

I'm well aware of that which is why I said "huge mass shooting", and "can kill dozens of people in a mere minute". It's thees that are on the rise. There is not much that can be done with the smaller mass shootings at this time.

I'm going to admit I shouldn't have used some of the examples I used, what I ment to say was a lot of mass shooting have happened in states and areas were it gun free or have strict gun laws, California has many restrictions and we had a few, while its much more rare to see Gun free states and open carry areas, have hardly any, that's my problem with gun control, it puts them at a bigger risk.

That's just an excuse to look the other way to defend something that is increasily hard to defend. It doesn't really matter where it happens, the idea that a good guy with a gun will deter a bad guy with a gun is just pure myth, which can't be statistically proven.

If we are talking about small mass shooting, they are usually are part of a domestic disputes, gang related, or someone going postal at work, and happen suddenly, in places people think are safe, where people, armed or not, are caught off guard.

Huge mass shooting happen in large public places, like dance clubs, schools, movie theaters, stores, restaurants, or concerts, happening so quickly, sometimes from a distance, even if their are armed people, or armed security guards, around, or police are arrive less than a minute later, dozens of people are already dead.

This is why I focouse on assault weapons, and high capacity mags.

Also, California has the largest population among all 50 states. Gun advocates will often point to highly populated states, because of their gun laws, to try to spin the raw numbers, while ignoring the actual ratio which shows states with the highest gun violence per 100,000 with the loosest gun laws.

At 12/7/19 09:00 PM, Mr-Horror wrote:

At 12/7/19 08:45 PM, EdyKel wrote: That's just an excuse to look the other way to defend something that is increasily hard to defend. It doesn't really matter where it happens, the idea that a good guy with a gun will deter a bad guy with a gun is just pure myth, which can't be statistically proven.

If we are talking about small mass shooting, they are usually are part of a domestic disputes, gang related, or someone going postal at work, and happen suddenly, in places people think are safe, where people, armed or not, are caught off guard.

Huge mass shooting happen in large public places, like dance clubs, schools, movie theaters, stores, restaurants, or concerts, happening so quickly, sometimes from a distance, even if their are armed people, or armed security guards, around, or police are arrive less than a minute later, dozens of people are already dead.

This is why I focouse on assault weapons, and high capacity mags.

Also, California has the largest population among all 50 states. Gun advocates will often point to highly populated states, because of their gun laws, to try to spin the raw numbers, while ignoring the actual ratio which shows states with the highest gun violence per 100,000 with the loosest gun laws.

First it's important to know the laws and rules for guns in the area and see where it will often happen such as public areas and what gun is used in shootings.

Third the fact you gave on Louisiana, it hardly explained why it's like that, so I Checked and roughly two-thirds are suicides, I checked again and 47% are suicides and 50 are homicides and the majority is in African Americans so it can be from gang crime or just burglary and most likely with illegal guns.

At 12/7/19 10:30 PM, EdyKel wrote:

At 12/7/19 09:00 PM, Mr-Horror wrote:

At 12/7/19 08:45 PM, EdyKel wrote: That's just an excuse to look the other way to defend something that is increasily hard to defend. It doesn't really matter where it happens, the idea that a good guy with a gun will deter a bad guy with a gun is just pure myth, which can't be statistically proven.

If we are talking about small mass shooting, they are usually are part of a domestic disputes, gang related, or someone going postal at work, and happen suddenly, in places people think are safe, where people, armed or not, are caught off guard.

Huge mass shooting happen in large public places, like dance clubs, schools, movie theaters, stores, restaurants, or concerts, happening so quickly, sometimes from a distance, even if their are armed people, or armed security guards, around, or police are arrive less than a minute later, dozens of people are already dead.

This is why I focouse on assault weapons, and high capacity mags.

Also, California has the largest population among all 50 states. Gun advocates will often point to highly populated states, because of their gun laws, to try to spin the raw numbers, while ignoring the actual ratio which shows states with the highest gun violence per 100,000 with the loosest gun laws.

First it's important to know the laws and rules for guns in the area and see where it will often happen such as public areas and what gun is used in shootings.

Not sure where you are going with this...

People with evil intent don't care about laws, but laws make it harder for them to get what they need, and usually makes them more expensive. Since we have very weak gun regulations on the federal level it affects all states, including those states with tougher gun laws. Many of these mass shooters can just hop over the state line to a state with weak gun laws and bring certain illegal guns back into their own states, getting them through straw buyers or gun show loopholes - or even order them online. Criminals, who are part of some criminal organization get them through a complicated system where US guns will smuggled from the US to Mexico and then back into the country with drugs. And it's harder to prosecute gun smuggler than drug smugglers.

Second if the population is bigger wouldn't more criminals have guns, putting good people at risk, even if to the person used a long scooped guns we haven't seen one of those types in a while now or at least heard in the news.

I fail to see your point, since people in those large populations can sill buy guns for self defense, even if the most gun restrictive area of the country, they just can't get a hold of assault weapons that easily without breaking the law and possibly paying more for them.

Third the fact you gave on Louisiana, it hardly explained why it's like that, so I Checked and roughly two-thirds are suicides, I checked again and 47% are suicides and 50 are homicides and the majority is in African Americans so it can be from gang crime or just burglary and most likely with illegal guns.

Yes, I keep suicides separate from gun violence, as well as do most statistics. And that still doesn't change the ratio - as seen in this link than focuses on just homicides. And if you are going to point out minority groups, which are more likely to be in poverty, for the high gun violence, then I will point out how these huge mass shooting are being done by white males (what is their excuses?).

At 12/10/19 01:56 PM, Chdonga wrote: Guns are like herpes. Once you get them in your country getting rid of them isn't that simple.

In a world where obtaining guns and gun parts under the table is easy, and 3D printers are capable of printing untraceable guns I think we need gun safety classes more than gun regulations that can't be enforced without infringing on other human rights.

At 12/11/19 09:23 AM, FrozenFire wrote: Hunting weaponry is fine. Handguns with only a few rounds in a magazine, fine. Weapons designed to eliminate several dozen people in 30 seconds? Should not be in the hands of civilians, ever. Best argument I've heard for owning an assault rifle is to stand up against government tyranny should it rein upon you.

Even that argument is weak, because an assault rifle is a fuckin' toy when facing off against a government drone. Imagine that scene in Iron Man where 5 hostiles are eliminated simultaneously with pinpoint accuracy.

Hell, just skilled military soldiers would smoke you out.

At 12/13/19 11:41 AM, morefngdbs wrote: I said it before, must have been a different gun thread.
I cannot fathom why the right to own guns is more important than the right to citizens life and safety.

I am not against gun ownership. I own several guns.
I own 2 rifles a large caliber and a smaller one , both bolt action with 5 shot magazines, the biggest legally allowed in this country. I own a 12 ga mag shotgun for mostly Geese and ducks, that I used to hunt. I haven't in over 10 years, but I used to. I have 1 semi auto also with a 5 round mag.

These have been more than adequate for any hunt I have ever been on. My 30-06 will kill any big game on the North American Continent..

To say that Your have to have semi to fully auto guns, large capacity magazines etc. IS B.S.

I suppose an argument could be made for a larger capacity mag, for say Hog Hunting. But The US allows belt fed guns in many states ,,,,really !??! a belt feed , come on that's an invention for warfare, a way to lob as many bullets at other people as possible in the shortest amount of time .

There needs to be balance in your gun laws. Training, back ground checks, restrict Mag sizes & it may make it a bit harder to shoot 20 or more people in a minute or 2 .

At 12/13/19 11:41 AM, morefngdbs wrote: I said it before, must have been a different gun thread.
I cannot fathom why the right to own guns is more important than the right to citizens life and safety.

I am not against gun ownership. I own several guns.
I own 2 rifles a large caliber and a smaller one , both bolt action with 5 shot magazines, the biggest legally allowed in this country. I own a 12 ga mag shotgun for mostly Geese and ducks, that I used to hunt. I haven't in over 10 years, but I used to. I have 1 semi auto also with a 5 round mag.

These have been more than adequate for any hunt I have ever been on. My 30-06 will kill any big game on the North American Continent..

To say that Your have to have semi to fully auto guns, large capacity magazines etc. IS B.S.

I suppose an argument could be made for a larger capacity mag, for say Hog Hunting. But The US allows belt fed guns in many states ,,,,really !??! a belt feed , come on that's an invention for warfare, a way to lob as many bullets at other people as possible in the shortest amount of time .

There needs to be balance in your gun laws. Training, back ground checks, restrict Mag sizes & it may make it a bit harder to shoot 20 or more people in a minute or 2 .

At 12/13/19 08:29 PM, Aceofthesky wrote: Guns should not be banned. But, there are certain people who should not be handling them. This include people with a history of violent crimes and those with mental disorders which could affect how they use and handle a gun. People need guns in situations such as when there is a robber in their house or if they are being mugged. People have a right to defend themselves and that right should not be taken away period.