[martok2112]

There is not really a line to be drawn with gun ownership, in terms of personal defense.

If a criminal plans a home invasion, they will plan it with the best means at their disposal. If they can get a hold of fully automatic weapons, why do the families being invaded have to suffer because they did not have equivalent means, or any means at all to defend themselves? The cops ain't gonna arrive soon enough to save the day, that's for sure.


Someone threatens me or my family (if I had a family), it's the grave (or at the very best, an extremely extended--to mean permanent-- stay in ICU/CCU) for that individual, plain and simple.

And yeah, I do want the best. If it's good enough for criminals to invade my home, or looters to take to the streets, then it's good enough for me to defend my home or my street. The AK-47 has the advantage of being an all around good weapon. Tough to kill, and fires a larger caliber round in comparison to the AR. The AR has the advantages of range and accuracy, whilst not being quite as robust as the AR.

Weapons being registered is just another act of big government intervention. Big government insinuating their control over peoples' lives. If I had to kill someone because they invaded my home or threatened me and my family, sorry, but I did it with my weapon that I own, and I should not have to lose my weapon to criminal investigations because I defended my life (or my loved ones' lives) with it. "Hey, there's the a**hat lying dead on the ground because he was stupid enough to threaten me or my friends or my loved ones. Take him away, not the means to defend myself in the future."

Yes, I do believe in screening prior to ownership of a firearm. But, it's just as easy to be able to acquire a weapon now, thanks to the internet. There used to be a 14 day wait on handguns. One can walk into a pawn shop and buy the pistol of their choice, and walk out with it same day because the background check can be done via internet. But, if the person passed, well, they get the firearm. If it shows up that a potential buyer has a felony conviction, or has mental issues, then hell no that weapon's not going to be sold to them, not unless the seller wants to end up with jail time as well.

I also believe in licensing, just like drivers' licenses. Same rules apply. If you are a convicted felon, or have a history of mental questionability, then you are not to be able to obtain a license for a firearm. Ideally a license means that I am clean to carry a weapon, that I am a responsible owner of a weapon(s), and that I know how to use it properly. Use the weapon illegally (robbery, home invasion, murder), then obviously you lose the license, as well as your ability to obtain one in the future, to say nothing of legally obtaining firearms. Unlike vehicular licenses, firearms licenses should be a one time thing. You lose it, there is no chance of getting it back, if you used your firearm in a criminal act.

Then again, all of the above is academic. Why would a potential criminal go about legal means to obtain the tools of their trade? The less of a paper trail they leave, the less that can be used to convict them, save for the fact that they would have charges of illegally owning/using a firearm without license.

I'm not scared of guns. Guns don't fire themselves. I'm scared of the people that can use them, and that's why I prefer to be able to defend myself under equivalent circumstances. Better to be on the negotiating end of a gun, rather than the business end.

Besides, there's vehicular homicide committed a lot of times too...does that mean we have to ban vehicles now?

Look. I get it. Some folks are afraid of guns. Because of that fear, they feel that no one else should be brave enough to own one. Only the military and law enforcement should have guns, which in turn means that only criminals would have guns. Fine and dandy except that the military and law enforcement cannot arrive in time to save the day before all the damage has been done. To be able to defend one's self should be an undeniable right, and that's why "the right for civilians to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned", although, sadly, it is now the case.

[MigueldaRican]

Originally Posted by martok2112

There is not really a line to be drawn with gun ownership, in terms of personal defense.

Armor piercing rounds, submachine guns, anti-tank rifles, sniper rifles, gatling guns, grenade launchers, forward firing cannons, rpgs, nukes... Somewhere in there, tell me there's a line, please.

Originally Posted by martok2112

If a criminal plans a home invasion, they will plan it with the best means at their disposal. If they can get a hold of fully automatic weapons, why do the families being invaded have to suffer because they did not have equivalent means, or any means at all to defend themselves? The cops ain't gonna arrive soon enough to save the day, that's for sure.

Someone threatens me or my family (if I had a family), it's the grave (or at the very best, an extremely extended--to mean permanent-- stay in ICU/CCU) for that individual, plain and simple.

And yeah, I do want the best. If it's good enough for criminals to invade my home, or looters to take to the streets, then it's good enough for me to defend my home or my street. The AK-47 has the advantage of being an all around good weapon. Tough to kill, and fires a larger caliber round in comparison to the AR. The AR has the advantages of range and accuracy, whilst not being quite as robust as the AR.

Really at this point, it's too late. Much of what us libbies want in terms of gun control is a pipe dream. The stats do speak for themselves. Gun ownership is going way, way up. Many guns are registered and many aren't. From what you're telling me and what I'm getting from other pro gun freedomers, is really it has to do with the knowledge that the bad guys are gettin armed to the teeth, and you want to get armed to the teeth and then some to protect yourself. And I also see the stats that say the good people who own guns aren't causing problems. So really no big "gun banning" laws are going to change that much. Criminals are still going to be criminals and they're going to get guns probably illegally anyway.

Originally Posted by martok2112

Weapons being registered is just another act of big government intervention. Big government insinuating their control over peoples' lives. If I had to kill someone because they invaded my home or threatened me and my family, sorry, but I did it with my weapon that I own, and I should not have to lose my weapon to criminal investigations because I defended my life (or my loved ones' lives) with it. "Hey, there's the a**hat lying dead on the ground because he was stupid enough to threaten me or my friends or my loved ones. Take him away, not the means to defend myself in the future."

Are you wanting them to just take your word for it? "I shot this guy, he was the bad guy, not me." "Oh, okay, sir, it's all good. Yeah, he kind of looks bad guyish. No need to call the inspector on this one."

On a side note: I'll take your word for it that you're against big government. We haven't discussed any other issues. But I always wonder whenever someone (anyone left or right) says, "I'm against big government" are they really against big government or just against the government they didn't vote for? Is it really anti-big-government? Or is it more like how a lot of guyslike their women: big in all the right places?

All around though, I will say that while I might still believe guns should be registered, I might have to change it to "should have". Again, the more I think about it, the more I realize it really is too late to start "crackin down on the gun ownin".

Originally Posted by martok2112

Besides, there's vehicular homicide committed a lot of times too...does that mean we have to ban vehicles now?

The "people can make anything a weapon" argument has proven to be a low rated one. Cars aren't made with the purpose to kill. Neither is any other "found weapon" item you may want to throw out there: hammers, box cutters, writing utensils, cleavers, your own body (unless you were created in some BOW lab. Umbrella?), etc. Guns are made for that purpose: to kill or even just to wound and cause pain.

Originally Posted by martok2112

Look. I get it. Some folks are afraid of guns. Because of that fear, they feel that no one else should be brave enough to own one. Only the military and law enforcement should have guns, which in turn means that only criminals would have guns. Fine and dandy except that the military and law enforcement cannot arrive in time to save the day before all the damage has been done. To be able to defend one's self should be an undeniable right, and that's why "the right for civilians to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned", although, sadly, it is now the case.

Look I pretty much agree with you on what laws you believe we should have in place as it pertains to this. Believe it or not liberals aren't this far left-lefty-left-lefteroo about every issue. But guns are what they are. And much of the sale is fear driven. Yeah, folks are afraid of guns, but then other folks buy guns because they're afraid.

I wish guns weren't needed. I wish people felt guns weren't needed. But it's a wish. And the "big government" is gonna have big problems if they try to forcibly grant my wish.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by MigueldaRican

Armor piercing rounds, submachine guns, anti-tank rifles, sniper rifles, gatling guns, grenade launchers, forward firing cannons, rpgs, nukes... Somewhere in there, tell me there's a line, please.



Really at this point, it's too late. Much of what us libbies want in terms of gun control is a pipe dream. The stats do speak for themselves. Gun ownership is going way, way up. Many guns are registered and many aren't. From what you're telling me and what I'm getting from other pro gun freedomers, is really it has to do with the knowledge that the bad guys are gettin armed to the teeth, and you want to get armed to the teeth and then some to protect yourself. And I also see the stats that say the good people who own guns aren't causing problems. So really no big "gun banning" laws are going to change that much. Criminals are still going to be criminals and they're going to get guns probably illegally anyway.



Are you wanting them to just take your word for it? "I shot this guy, he was the bad guy, not me." "Oh, okay, sir, it's all good. Yeah, he kind of looks bad guyish. No need to call the inspector on this one."

On a side note: I'll take your word for it that you're against big government. We haven't discussed any other issues. But I always wonder whenever someone (anyone left or right) says, "I'm against big government" are they really against big government or just against the government they didn't vote for? Is it really anti-big-government? Or is it more like how a lot of guyslike their women: big in all the right places?

All around though, I will say that while I might still believe guns should be registered, I might have to change it to "should have". Again, the more I think about it, the more I realize it really is too late to start "crackin down on the gun ownin".



The "people can make anything a weapon" argument has proven to be a low rated one. Cars aren't made with the purpose to kill. Neither is any other "found weapon" item you may want to throw out there: hammers, box cutters, writing utensils, cleavers, your own body (unless you were created in some BOW lab. Umbrella?), etc. Guns are made for that purpose: to kill or even just to wound and cause pain.



Look I pretty much agree with you on what laws you believe we should have in place as it pertains to this. Believe it or not liberals aren't this far left-lefty-left-lefteroo about every issue. But guns are what they are. And much of the sale is fear driven. Yeah, folks are afraid of guns, but then other folks buy guns because they're afraid.

I wish guns weren't needed. I wish people felt guns weren't needed. But it's a wish. And the "big government" is gonna have big problems if they try to forcibly grant my wish.

Hmmm....no nukes, but an RPG or two might not hurt.

Honestly, MR, we can debate this till we're both blue in the face. If there is one thing I do wish, like you, is that we did not need guns. I wish for nothing but peace with all, among all. I do not own guns for their own sake, but for the necessity. If we did not need guns, believe me, you shan't find a happier person. But until the need goes away, neither will my guns.

Ultimately, the focus of this thread (and I am willing to certainly step down on this whole "gun debate" matter, because this divides the unity of focus, and I do feel like I sort of unbalanced or derailed the thread with my views...so call me guilty ) is the loss of little ones, and others, to an unspeakable act. And on top of that, the unspeakable act committed by someone that we can now no longer prosecute. That's why, being the spiritual person I am, I pray for his just punishments for each and every life he took, and each and every life he destroyed as a result of his actions. We are all going to have our views on the peripheral aspects of the case, but we are all agreed that something like this should never have happened, and we hope against hope we never see or hear of something so vile ever again.

Peace, amigo?

[horatio]

Originally Posted by martok2112

Yes, I do believe in screening prior to ownership of a firearm. But, it's just as easy to be able to acquire a weapon now, thanks to the internet. There used to be a 14 day wait on handguns. One can walk into a pawn shop and buy the pistol of their choice, and walk out with it same day because the background check can be done via internet. But, if the person passed, well, they get the firearm. If it shows up that a potential buyer has a felony conviction, or has mental issues, then hell no that weapon's not going to be sold to them, not unless the seller wants to end up with jail time as well.

I also believe in licensing, just like drivers' licenses. Same rules apply. If you are a convicted felon, or have a history of mental questionability, then you are not to be able to obtain a license for a firearm. Ideally a license means that I am clean to carry a weapon, that I am a responsible owner of a weapon(s), and that I know how to use it properly. Use the weapon illegally (robbery, home invasion, murder), then obviously you lose the license, as well as your ability to obtain one in the future, to say nothing of legally obtaining firearms. Unlike vehicular licenses, firearms licenses should be a one time thing. You lose it, there is no chance of getting it back, if you used your firearm in a criminal act.

I also dislike overregulation and bureaucratic crap and appreciate that we find some common ground, moderate regulation of gun ownership that tries to prevent criminals and psychopaths from getting access to a gun.

Then again, all of the above is academic. Why would a potential criminal go about legal means to obtain the tools of their trade? The less of a paper trail they leave, the less that can be used to convict them, save for the fact that they would have charges of illegally owning/using a firearm without license.

I'm not scared of guns. Guns don't fire themselves. I'm scared of the people that can use them, and that's why I prefer to be able to defend myself under equivalent circumstances. Better to be on the negotiating end of a gun, rather than the business end.

I totally agree, organized crime does get its hand on weapons independent of the law (hell, if weapons are illegal they can even deal with them like drug dealers!) and even petty criminals might wanna get an illegal gun.
But in the case of this school shooting an adolescent guy picked the guns of his mother who thought that she needed them to defend her home when things go sour (which is obviously a lunatic notion, when there is a social problem you cannot close your door and defend your castle). I am definitely afraid of guns in the hands of such people who are either poor parents or neglect to put the guns our of the reach of their children.

At last I wanna mention the problem of multiple equilibria. You mentioned that you want a gun in order to keep level with the criminals who might attack you (I think the damage of white collar crime upon ordinary people is far larger than that of petty criminals but that is another topic) and we know this logic from the balance of power logic of foreign policy. I am not a pacifist and I am not an anti-gun guy either. But I think it is preferable to reduce arms internationally and domestically simply because it wastes less resources. So I am not a hippie who says that arms races are so dangerous but just an economist who sees waste and the potential for a cooperative equilibrium with less waste.
When you would e.g. live over here you wouldn't deem it less necessary to own a gun simply because fewer guys and fewer bad guys own guns (if I may be cynical, our trick is to not use but produce and sell the weapons to countries like Saudi Arabia).

[martok2112]

Indeed, sometimes it almost seems an arms race between the honest citizen, and the criminal.

And ultimately, we do agree that it's not guns we should be afraid of...but those who wield them for the wrong purpose, or those who know no responsibility of how to handle them.

Given all that, I do reaffirm what I said earlier about wishing there were no need for guns....I will caveat that with: save for hunting for food to survive or to make profit from the hunt, so long as the hunts are not so great that it threatens a species' population.

[MigueldaRican]

Originally Posted by martok2112

Hmmm....no nukes, but an RPG or two might not hurt.

Honestly, MR, we can debate this till we're both blue in the face. If there is one thing I do wish, like you, is that we did not need guns. I wish for nothing but peace with all, among all. I do not own guns for their own sake, but for the necessity. If we did not need guns, believe me, you shan't find a happier person. But until the need goes away, neither will my guns.

Ultimately, the focus of this thread (and I am willing to certainly step down on this whole "gun debate" matter, because this divides the unity of focus, and I do feel like I sort of unbalanced or derailed the thread with my views...so call me guilty ) is the loss of little ones, and others, to an unspeakable act. And on top of that, the unspeakable act committed by someone that we can now no longer prosecute. That's why, being the spiritual person I am, I pray for his just punishments for each and every life he took, and each and every life he destroyed as a result of his actions. We are all going to have our views on the peripheral aspects of the case, but we are all agreed that something like this should never have happened, and we hope against hope we never see or hear of something so vile ever again.

Peace, amigo?

I can't though. I can't debate it. It's just such a gray area. I think really, the fear is trusting people. I think like you said the fear is trusting someone other than those whose actual job is to carry a gun. So I really find that I'm with you on most things regarding this issue.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by MigueldaRican

I can't though. I can't debate it. It's just such a gray area. I think really, the fear is trusting people. I think like you said the fear is trusting someone other than those whose actual job is to carry a gun. So I really find that I'm with you on most things regarding this issue.

Understood. Yes it is a very gray area....and indeed a most reasonable fear, and one more cemented given recent events.

A parent should never have to kiss their little child goodbye when sending them off to school, and wonder if they're ever going to see them again. That is a fear that should be reserved for those whose grown children serve as police or military, not for small children; sons and daughters, nieces, nephews and grandchildren who dream of nice Christmases (or holiday that represents their joyous times), happy birthdays, playing with their pets, Saturday morning cartoons (do those even exist anymore?), and all the other fanciful things that little kids are wont to think of.

A child should never have to say bye bye to their mommies and daddies, and wonder if they're going to go home after school, to the safety of house and home, and the loving arms of their parents.

Speaking relatively, our children still have it fairly good here in the U.S. with safety and security. There are other countries, as we all well know, where children must deal with warfare every day of their lives, even while attending school, or taking a trip to market. Such children are forced to grow up fast, and learn how to survive.

[LCARS 24]

I like to think that no sane adults are in favor of children taking guns to school. But what do I know? People basically don't have guns where I live.

In Japan rifles and shotguns are legal, but the licensing procedure is lengthy and difficult, and those weapons are only allowed for hunting and for skeet and trap shooting. No one without a licence is allowed to hold a gun. The police have pistols, but only the holsters are actually visible.

It's not for me to say any other country should do the same, but it's probably the biggest reason some Americans choose to live here or in other countries with strict gun control despite certain inconveniences.

And, of course, some monster who wanted to go to a school and kill a bunch of toddlers could use a bomb if obtaining firearms were too difficult.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by LCARS 24

I like to think that no sane adults are in favor of children taking guns to school. But what do I know? People basically don't have guns where I live.

In Japan rifles and shotguns are legal, but the licensing procedure is lengthy and difficult, and those weapons are only allowed for hunting and for skeet and trap shooting. No one without a licence is allowed to hold a gun. The police have pistols, but only the holsters are actually visible.

It's not for me to say any other country should do the same, but it's probably the biggest reason some Americans choose to live here or in other countries with strict gun control despite certain inconveniences.

And, of course, some monster who wanted to go to a school and kill a bunch of toddlers could use a bomb if obtaining firearms were too difficult.

Not to mention, bombs can be improvised. Very scary.

[starbase63]

Originally Posted by martok2112

Ultimately, the focus of this thread (and I am willing to certainly step down on this whole "gun debate" matter, because this divides the unity of focus, and I do feel like I sort of unbalanced or derailed the thread with my views...so call me guilty ) is the loss of little ones, and others, to an unspeakable act. And on top of that, the unspeakable act committed by someone that we can now no longer prosecute. That's why, being the spiritual person I am, I pray for his just punishments for each and every life he took, and each and every life he destroyed as a result of his actions. We are all going to have our views on the peripheral aspects of the case, but we are all agreed that something like this should never have happened, and we hope against hope we never see or hear of something so vile ever again.

Peace, amigo?

This ^^

Many of the threads I'm in on this subject on other boards have become mired on the gun issue and the mental health issue.

Yesterday afternoon, I drove by the funeral home where Vicki Soto's wake would be last night. It's literally a minute's drive down the street from my house. The green across the street from it was taped off and the area was full of State Police and our own cops. She's going to be buried in a few hours in the same cemetary where my father-in-law and other members of my wife's family are. It drove home to me just how close to home this incident is.

Let's not forget the victims and their families.