Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 12:10pm PT
|
You are right, sorry. Everyone should be able to go out an buy a gun capable of accurately hitting a target from 2 miles away, for whatever reason... it is out God given right and clearly the intention of the 2nd amendment. No killing machines should be banned at all, for any reason.
peas
Sh#t, just ban the average .308 bolt action. They're statistically more dangerous. See what I mean about emotional vs logical response there?
Ain't those used for hunting quite a bit? Why would you want to ban a gun that is used by so many for a legitimate purpose?
Tell me again... what do people USE .50 for?
Gas explosions kill more people than napalm... yet napalm is banned. Go figure... it is a crazy world out there.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 12:14pm PT
|
No killing machines should be banned at all, for any reason.
You stupid monkey!
Just about everything made these days is killing everyone.
Ya stupid hypocritical monkey from the pond scum ...
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 12:17pm PT
|
I love you WB.
In a (mostly) heterosexual way.
|
|
jonnyrig
Trad climber
formerly known as hillrat
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 12:24pm PT
|
You are right, sorry. Everyone should be able to go out an buy a gun capable of accurately hitting a target from 2 miles away, for whatever reason... it is out God given right and clearly the intention of the 2nd amendment. No killing machines should be banned at all, for any reason. peas Sh#t, just ban the average .308 bolt action. They're statistically more dangerous. See what I mean about emotional vs logical response there? Ain't those used for hunting quite a bit? Why would you want to ban a gun that is used by so many for a legitimate purpose? Tell me again... what do people USE .50 for?
Yeah, my phone doesnt cut n paste well.
Now yer just being an ass. Why?
There are other calibers that are as accurate as the 50. They dont hit quite as hard at that distance, and frankly most people arent that accurate anyway. Point is, theyre not being used to shoot each other down at the 7-11. So you want to ban dangerous weapons that get a lot of use in crime. Ok. And here you are playing champion for this ban on a gun thats primarily used for long range organized shooting matches by responsible owners with practically no history of criminal use. Hmm...
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 12:33pm PT
|
Point is, theyre not being used to shoot each other down at the 7-11. So you want to ban dangerous weapons that get a lot of use in crime. Ok. And here you are playing champion for this ban on a gun thats primarily used for long range organized shooting matches by responsible owners with practically no history of criminal use.
I'm not being an ass... just a little sarcastic.
But I don't think you understand the point I am trying to make.
The guns used in crime (hand guns) are generally the same guns used for self-defense. The .308 you mention being associated with many accidents are the same guns used by many for hunting. Attempts to ban useful guns used for legitimate reasons are silly... especially in the US west.
Tell me again, what do people USE 50 cal for? Not to defend their homes. Not to carry as personal defense. What legitimate reason does the average citizen have for owning and operating a gun capable of accurately hitting a target from 2 miles away? What purpose, other than personal entertainment, do they serve?
And here you are playing champion for this ban on a gun thats primarily used for long range organized shooting matches by responsible owners with practically no history of criminal use.
hahaha... I'm not championing anything. I didn't even know about the ban until you brought it up. I don't really give a fuk. But I don't see ANY LEGITIMATE REASON to allow people to go out and buy such a weapon, so I am certainly not opposed to the ban.
FWIW, if it weren't for my nephew's soccer game, I was going to go shoot a 50 cal with my sister in Salt Lake just 2 weeks ago. She said most of the people she works with (cops) require an assistant to stabilize their shoulder the first few times they shoot it. And you are arguing that restricting access to those weapons is a bad idea?
|
|
jonnyrig
Trad climber
formerly known as hillrat
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 12:37pm PT
|
Im saying the law was passed because law enforcement wasnt charging people with negligent driving. Can you tell me why not? How long until eating while driving gets banned? Thats distracting.
Do you drive? Do you think the law is really effective? I see people every day talking and texting and weaving down the road. See a cop? Hide the phone. Its a f*#king joke. Certainly the deaths attributable to it are not. They are tragic.
But thinking a ban is going to fix things? Thats a partial bandaid that doesnt quite satisfy. Make it harder to get a license! Take the goddam license away for such serious violations, like with DUI. But take every f*#king vehicle they own too so they dont go driving without a license!
Thats the logic, that outright bans and low cost monetary fines are crap. Ill concieved, poorly administered, and a pain in the ass for everyone.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 12:41pm PT
|
Make it harder to get a GUN license (and actually require a GUN license)! Take the goddam GUN license away for such serious violations, like with DUI. But take every f*#king GUN they own too so they dont go SHOOTING without a license!
Sounds reasonable to me.
|
|
jonnyrig
Trad climber
formerly known as hillrat
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 01:01pm PT
|
Sarcasm, ok. Not an ass. Really though, target shooting is legitimate. Especially an organized event. Isnt that what you proposed earlier? Are we to limit firearms to what gets use for hunting or defense, regardless of track record?
Gun license? Ah, what the hell. Only then, like cars, you can buy whatever ya want. That seems reasonable too.
|
|
jonnyrig
Trad climber
formerly known as hillrat
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 01:24pm PT
|
Yes, some laws are necessary to avoid anarchy. But to what extent? You wont try and argue with me that all laws are good and necessary right?
Im trying to argue that laws should be intelligent and effective, vs punitive to an entire society. They should punish the individual, not the public.
From what I can see it appears we're tipping the scale in the wrong direction on many fronts, in the name of public safety. But what kind of country is that? Not very free.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 07:39pm PT
|
Oh please! The public is being punished because the small minority who want to go out and buy a 50 cal (or AR15 or napalm or etc) can't do so anytime they want?
Okay, that was sarcastic. On a serious note, tell me how "the public" is being punished by current gun legislation.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 07:40pm PT
|
Chaz, i must disagree with you concerning resources for mental health. The resources avalable are a fraction of what is needed. Those that do exist are understaffed and grossly underfunded.
If we regarded "mental" disease as we do other diseases this would not be the case. Early diagnosis and "proper" treatment would keep many people with mental disease out of our overcrowded jails and off of the streets.
It's a disgrace that the world's richest country does not do a decent job treating it's citizens afflicted with mental disease.
People unfortunate enough, through no fault of there own, to be afflicted with mental disease must not only deal with the disease itself, they also have to deal with daily disdain from those they encounter.
|
|
lostinshanghai
Social climber
someplace
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 08:07pm PT
|
Problem I have is everyone now is calling it PTSD, Lawyers, families and to me this is an easy way out when the underlying issues our far from it.
|
|
jonnyrig
Trad climber
formerly known as hillrat
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 10:43pm PT
|
Well, for sure we're nt addressing mental health in any adequate fashion. It astouns ne just how quick we are willing to give up other rights, yet not require thorough reporting of mental instability where guns are concerned.
As to why we dont universally require background checks, seems obvious. No politician on either side has the balls to address that issue seperately. It always gets proposed as part of a package deal n gun control. Fail.
How are people having their rights restricted? I guess you wouldnt know, not having the desire to carry a concealed weapon for self defense over there in California. Cali gun laws are screwed- even the cops get them wrong. Who even knows what is really legal there?
So, to answer your question directly, through personal experience, I feel Cali restricts my rights every time i visit.
And of course you'll counter by saying I havent needed a gun there in defense yet. Except i have. Other members of my family have. But you dont really care about that do you? Its just dismissable anecdotal heresay to you, eh? And to acknowlege that, you might have to reevaluate your point of view.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 10:24am PT
|
So, to answer your question directly, through personal experience, I feel Cali restricts my rights every time i visit.
Well, unless CA's gun laws are determined to be unconstitutional, there ain't nothing anyone can do. Every state between CA, WA, and CO restricts some cancer patient's right to take their preferred medication. I can't take my dogs to my sister's house, 2 miles from my mom's house, because of breed specific legislation. Some laws are stupid, no doubt. How about instead of fighting we try to work together to get better background checks, mental health evaluations, and require training and/or licenses for gun owners?
And of course you'll counter by saying I havent needed a gun there in defense yet. Except i have. Other members of my family have. But you dont really care about that do you? Its just dismissable anecdotal heresay to you, eh? And to acknowlege that, you might have to reevaluate your point of view.
I'm not going to counter with that... I may have asked if you had ever needed one, but I certainly would not say you haven't. And I do care, and it ain't dismissible anecdotal hearsay. I don't have to reevaluate anything to acknowledge that.
My sister and brother-in-law carry EVERY TIME THEY STEP OUT THE DOOR. In over 20 years, neither of them have needed to use their gun while off duty. I find it surprising that others seem to "need" their guns substantially more often. Of course they live in Salt Lake City... a pretty dangerous city!
On the flip side, I've had a gun pulled on me or been threatened with a gun 4 times between the ages of 16 and 20 (all in Salt Lake). Once for mooning someone, once for swearing in public, once for hiding in the wrong backyard at 9:30 pm, and once during a ruckus game of dodge ball at a church. Each time I clearly posed absolutely NO threat to anyone. I was not threatening anyone's safety or property, with the possible exception of the guy who's backyard I was hiding in... I can somewhat understand his reaction. But the others used their guns for intimidation, to "teach me a lesson" and/or influence my behavior because they didn't like it. Does that make sense to you... that we allow people with that mentality to own guns that they use to threaten teenagers whose behavior (or appearance) they disagree with? Because it makes perfect sense to Rong:
Wessie,,I was going to say it was ODD that you and your friends always seem to be getting ... threatened by guns and so on, but then i considered your internet persona around here and it all makes perfect sense to me now...
Like I've said, I grew up with guns, I own guns, I shoot guns fairly often, I like guns, and most people I know have guns (some I feel shouldn't). But I'm disturbed at how easy it is for pretty much ANYONE to get a gun... especially people who think it makes sense to pull a gun on someone because they don't like how they look or act. Too many Zimmermans out there... and too many Rongs who feel he was justified in stalking and killing an innocent teen based solely on appearance.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 11:24am PT
|
In America, it's easy for anyone to get anything.
What do you need? I'll make a few phone calls.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 11:39am PT
|
A few days ago there was a road rage incident.
Both drivers exited their vehicles and shot each other dead.
LOL
Stupid Americans ......
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 12:24pm PT
|
Ron, you should spend some time learning about demographics.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 12:30pm PT
|
You still haven't learnt sh#t. Per capita is irrelevant. You need to compare murder rates by POPULATION DENSITY (an aspect of demographics) because violent crime is correlated with population density. Then you will see that anywhere in WY and Carson City come out worst than the Bay Area.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 12:36pm PT
|
The "demographics" will show that the bay area is far more dangerous per capita than any where in Wyoming for instance.
I said CITY not state.
Wyoming is a city?
You know what density is, right? 70K is only half of the equation. Keep trying.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!