Example of why one should be allowed to possess/carry a firearm

a reply to: LilFox

The point of the matter, AS I HAVE POINTED OUT SEVERAL TIMES, is that there will be dialogue regarding firearms

Yes and that is the American people want there guns, fact this last September was another historic month for gun sales . in fact Smith and Wesson stock prices were up 87% , so what does that tell ya... You must be one of these people who want more gun control, am I right? If so what is it you want to see?

a reply to: LilFox

Every time there's a mass murder, publicized murder or school schooting you lose a little more ground and even crediblity.

No every time that happens people go out and buy more guns..

a reply to: LilFox

Now that was just cold, I am not stupid nor am I a troll , I asked what you want, you know, looking to open a diologe as you say, you seem to be anti gun, and I am new to the thread so I am late to the issue, please tell me what you want to see happen when it comes to guns..

a reply to: wildb

I answered several times, condensed and even bolded it. Yet you asked..

I am not anti gun or pro gun. I am pro, "intelligent gun ownership". I am anti school shooting and stupid gun ownership.

What I would support is regulations which support general firearm licensing, restrictions for those on certain medication which impede judgment or are anti depressants (due to suicide), safe storage of firearms (safe/trigger lock) and separate storage of ammunition.

Let's say you are on a course of antidepressants due to an event in your life. I would not be hard to check your firearms in at a gun club, pay for storage and temporarily hand in your license at a gun store or police station. That alone could save lives, including that of the gun owner.

If you live in in a high density area, you should not have certain firearms without reason. Maybe you go hunting elsewhere, maybe you are a vermin controller. It is not a good idea to have the in "the burbs" but if you do.. put them in a safe. If someone wants a gun in the US, all they need to do is break into someone's house and steal it.

Guns are a tool. They have uses, that's for sure. But if people are not willing to even discuss a compromise, everyone loses.

School shootings are abhorrent and are common in the US for a reason. If they can't get the guns or its a lot harder, the shooting won't happen. That's just a fact. There's a reason that there's metal detector in US schools. Yes, there's ways around it and yes, kids get stabbed... but gun control doesn't need to go against you. It WILL save lives. That makes the discussion not only worthwhile, but essential.

At a guess they will probably set up licensing, change the "gun fair" regulations, magazine sizes, restrict certain ammunition or license it and probably implement storage regulations, which I'd support. I may support restrictions on firearms types, depending on what it is.

Basically, if you stop certain firearms, or all firearms falling into the hands of certain people, particularly children, lots of lives will be saved. That can be achieved in a variety of ways. That will probably end up as a blanket ban if the gun lobby and gun owners continue to stupidly resist any dialogue.

a reply to: LilFox

As I said I have not read the whole thread, based on your last post can I assume you are not from the USA?

a reply to: wildb

No, I am not.

Shouldn't you read the thread before assuming I am anti gun and assuming what is being said?

That's exactly the kind of thing I am talking about, assumptions.

If you really are pro gun ownership, be pro dialogue. Being anti dialogue means you are letting the talking heads in washington make the choices for you, without your input.

a reply to: LilFox

Yes well they do that anyway..lol,, we have more gun laws on the books then ever before and you know what they don't work, the trend in the us, as in what the people want is less gun control, and thats whats been going on for the last 15/20 years. Gun crimes are at an all time low..

Let me say, as here in the US, gun control is raciest from its oragen (sp) gun control has killed more than it has saved, this is a fact, and for someone who does not live here you can't understand whats going on..

The way we see it is people have the right to self defense, to many have died because they were denied, or in other words, the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.. In the US a gun stops a crime or a rape over two million times a year, do the math.. guns saves lives, thats a statistical fact weather you like it or not..,, thanks for the chat..

a reply to: LilFox

And another thing, this is why guns in the hands of people is important..

a reply to: wildb

Gun control is not racist, people are racist. Claiming that is not only an expression of bias but is like stating speed cameras are racist if they happen to catch more of a certain ethnicity.

You can kick up all of the excuses you want but the fact is in countries where there is effective gun control, there's less gun violence and accidents. Cold, hard facts. The second amendment? Did they have school shootings then? Was the situation the same then as it is now? Was the population density the same then as it is now? Were today's firearms and ammunition available then? NO. Your contention is invalid.
Not only that, but so many "pro gun" people say the same thing... you're using it as an excuse. Have any of you tried to stop your government getting involved in Iraq/Iran/Syria? How about the way the talking heads in washington are making you the enemy of the world? Excuses excuses.

If you have a gun, it should be secured. If not for your own safety, do it for the safety of others. Safes are not expensive. You can even loop a cable through the firearm in various ways as an expedient lock. It may stop someone from stealing it or even from it being loaded and used by children. How the hell does the second amendment equate to an argument against safe gun ownership?

Conspiracies and bias do not equate to an effective rebuttal against logic. You are claiming all gun laws do not work, in the face of facts from all around the world which PROVE BEYOND DOUBT that they do work. How many guns do you think would be stolen in the US if they were all stored in safes? I can't say, but I do know it will be less than at present.

How many children do you think will accidentally shoot someone in the family home if the firearm is secured properly and the child is educated on how to treat firearms? A lot less than now.

Of course, the laws or may not give you what you want, total freedom, but the fact of the matter is the cost presently of the lax US gun laws is too high.

So tell me, would you personally be willing to participate in dialogue regarding firearms laws?

a reply to: LilFox

Gun control is not racist, people are racist. Claiming that is not only an expression of bias but is like stating speed cameras are racist if they happen to catch more of a certain ethnicity. You can kick up all of the excuses you want but the fact is in countries where there is effective gun control, there's less gun violence and accidents. Cold, hard facts.

This part of your statement is untrue, Gun control in the us is racist, why, well lets see, the NRA, you know the big bad gun lobby, do you know why it was created ? it was created to PROTECT the freed slaves of the time, therefor gun control at the time was racist..as for less gun crime, yes but not violent crime at all, look at the UK, for example..

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

a reply to: wildb

A law in itself cannot be racist, it is not sentient.. Implementation can be racist.

Stop changing the subject.

Answer the question. Are you willing to participate in dialogue in regards to firearms laws?

a reply to: LilFox

So tell me, would you personally be willing to participate in dialogue regarding firearms laws?

Sure I would, I am telling you that, am I not ?

a reply to: mikegrouchy

Attributed bias
Assumed results of dialogue
Assumed results of firearms laws
Ignorance

Flat out biased and stupid statement.

a reply to: wildb

You are refuting a logical contention such as firearms needing to be secured with the second amendment.

If you had firearms, but they were secured when in storage, that has NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the second amendment granted rights.

That's exactly the kind of thing that needs to stop. Assumptions, bias, complaining...

What are you going to get out of that? Washington passing laws without you. Murders in the meantime.

What is so wrong about having to have your firearms secured? There's even biometric safes and other locked containers that are designed so you can retrieve a firearm rapidly in the case of a home invasion.

But what is a call for dialogue met with? Idiocy. Look at the image that was pasted.. flat out stupidity. It is not even an effective argument... but fools believe that is fact.

a reply to: LilFox

The second amendment? Did they have school shootings then? Was the situation the same then as it is now?

No it was not, you could mail order guns back then, the guns did not change so what did?

a reply to: LilFox

What is so wrong about having to have your firearms secured? There's even biometric safes and other locked containers that are designed so you can retrieve a firearm rapidly in the case of a home invasion.

Yep I have that, so why are you arguing with me , I am a responsible person, just don't want the gov telling me what to do ,,get it

a reply to: wildb

People changed, firearms changed, population density changed... Laws need to change with people. We slow cars down in certain areas because there is an unacceptable risk involved, like when driving past a school. You don't do it at highway speeds.

But as you see above, certain types of people think that dialogue = loss of guns. There is no way they can know that.

The US loves their guns, the way to save lives and your access to firearms is to regulate. That does not inherently mean losing firearms. If someone tried to push that law it might cost them their political career. So what else can they do? Secure the firearms. Implement effective licensing to stop firearms getting into the wrong hands. That is not, "Take all guns", but biased fools think that is inevitable.. and that is why dialogue is so difficult.

Is that not logical?

originally posted by: LilFox
a reply to: mikegrouchy

Attributed bias
Assumed results of dialogue
Assumed results of firearms laws
Ignorance

Flat out biased and stupid statement.