CDZ Do those who push gun control think there are no actual threats?

[Toronado3800]

If reasonable limits are not self imposed, they are imposed externally.
Owning a firearm is one thing. Carrying is another. High powered, high capacity firearms are yet another.

They are not high powered.......you made up a new term......

they are not high capacity......they are standard capacity magazines.....

But thanks for being dishonest...

There are no high powered guns?

There are no high capacity magazines?

I missed something.

 

[2aguy]

Do we have to assume there is a constant and imminent threat to want guns for all? And if we do assume that such a threat exists, does that, or does that not effect our thinking on when and where gunplay is appropriate?

Personally, I do not feel threatened. Consequently I do not think a gun is a safe, appropriate or viable action to take. Perhaps your circumstances are different. I hope not. For to think your life hangs on such a slender thread must be emotionally exhausting. To live with such paranoia must push away every other consideration.

And neither do gun owners who choose to carry a gun for self defense. There is no paranoia, the same way there is no paranoia when they buckle their seat belt, put on their helmet for the motorcycle, or put in an alarm system for the home.....there is an understanding, without any more emotion than carrying a cell phone, that some people are the victim of violent crimes....and those victims never know when or where it will happen. The gun is of no more concern than the cell phone, or the wallet for the gun owner........

You guys are the ones who actually obsess about guns.......and live in fear of guns that you never see, or know are being carried right under your noses....

Seat belts, motorcycle helmets and alarm systems are designed exclusively to kill people. Handguns are. Seat belts, motorcycle helmets and alarm systems are wise precautionary things. Carrying a gun is extreme and caters to that paranoia. Or, more unfortunately, carrying a gun reinforces the Dirty Harry complex. The Hero Gunslinger complex. What my sainted father called "small man's syndrome".

I couldn't agree more and actually, this also agrees with part of the OP - that people buy guns because they are afraid.

What you call the The Hero Gunslinger complex, I call The Mighty Mouse Syndrome but it's the same thing. It's that fantasy that the person who feels helpless, with no control over most of their life, will one day prove they were right along. They will swoop down to save all those people didn't have a gun and could not defend themselves.

Funny that my father called it the same thing.

That why the OP is here every day, posting the thing over and over. He's Mighty Mouse and needs to prove he's actually a hero.

SSDD - Same Spam, Different Day


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

I have nothing to prove.......I already am a hero....

 

[2aguy]

If reasonable limits are not self imposed, they are imposed externally.
Owning a firearm is one thing. Carrying is another. High powered, high capacity firearms are yet another.

They are not high powered.......you made up a new term......

they are not high capacity......they are standard capacity magazines.....

But thanks for being dishonest...

There are no high powered guns?

There are no high capacity magazines?

I missed something.

So did I...I thought he was saying the magazines were high powered.......and no... a standard size magazine that comes with the pistol is not high capacity....that term was created to scare the uninformed into going along with banning magazines......it is the typical anti gun bait and switch......those who don't pay attention think that a high capacity magazine is a 100 round drum magazine for rifles......so they want those banned....then, of course, the anti gunners switch what they really wanted banned, and ban 15 round magazines...the standard issue magazine for various models of pistol....making those pistols unusable...even though the owners never used them to commit any crime...it is a backdrop gun ban.

 

[ChrisL]

Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that gun control laws are not going to stop murderers. Do murder laws stop them? Duhhhhhhh.

 

[rightwinger]

Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that gun control laws are not going to stop murderers. Do murder laws stop them? Duhhhhhhh.

So you are saying we shouldn't have murder laws?

 

[Silent Warrior]

Of course laws work. That is why no one has ever been shot in a gun free zone.

 

[there4eyeM]

The simple fact is that the majority will exact the controls that the majority finds desirable. So, maintaining an inflexible position against the majority is a sure way to be frustrated. This poster doesn't care how many firearms people own or what type they are or how many bullets their clips or magazines hold.
He doesn't care about the terminology involved.
He does know that the statistical probability of finding oneself in a situation where a firearm will resolve a problem is very low.
He does realize that the growing sense in America is that the fascination with firearms is unhealthy.
He sees that steps may be taken to address this.
He sees that the attitude of many firearm enthusiasts does not help their cause.

 

[danielpalos]

The general defense belongs to the States, not the Union; the Union is for the common defense.

 

[2aguy]

Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that gun control laws are not going to stop murderers. Do murder laws stop them? Duhhhhhhh.

So you are saying we shouldn't have murder laws?

Nope......what we are saying is focus on those who actually break the law....arrest them....don't worry about normal, law abiding people who own guns...they are not the ones shooting people or using their guns to commit crimes.

If someone uses a gun to commit rape, robbery or murder...you can arrest them...just make sure to put them in jail for 30 years and you will actually be stopping gun crimes....

But creating meaningless laws.....registration, licensing, and universal background checks, don't stop people from using guns to commit those crimes.......they target non criminals. They don't stop criminals, they don't stop mass shooters.....

 

[Nosmo King]

Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that gun control laws are not going to stop murderers. Do murder laws stop them? Duhhhhhhh.

So you are saying we shouldn't have murder laws?

Nope......what we are saying is focus on those who actually break the law....arrest them....don't worry about normal, law abiding people who own guns...they are not the ones shooting people or using their guns to commit crimes.

If someone uses a gun to commit rape, robbery or murder...you can arrest them...just make sure to put them in jail for 30 years and you will actually be stopping gun crimes....

But creating meaningless laws.....registration, licensing, and universal background checks, don't stop people from using guns to commit those crimes.......they target non criminals. They don't stop criminals, they don't stop mass shooters.....

Why is registration a meaningless law? Just before he pulled the trigger, Hodgkinson and Lanza and Roof were "law abiding citizens". After their crimes, whymshould the source of their weaponry be searched by hand by file clerks using 19th century technology?

 

[2aguy]

Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that gun control laws are not going to stop murderers. Do murder laws stop them? Duhhhhhhh.

So you are saying we shouldn't have murder laws?

Nope......what we are saying is focus on those who actually break the law....arrest them....don't worry about normal, law abiding people who own guns...they are not the ones shooting people or using their guns to commit crimes.

If someone uses a gun to commit rape, robbery or murder...you can arrest them...just make sure to put them in jail for 30 years and you will actually be stopping gun crimes....

But creating meaningless laws.....registration, licensing, and universal background checks, don't stop people from using guns to commit those crimes.......they target non criminals. They don't stop criminals, they don't stop mass shooters.....

Why is registration a meaningless law? Just before he pulled the trigger, Hodgkinson and Lanza and Roof were "law abiding citizens". After their crimes, whymshould the source of their weaponry be searched by hand by file clerks using 19th century technology?

1st....gun registration is used to later confiscate guns....the British, Australians and Germans registered guns and then years later confiscated guns....

2nd.... actual criminals do not have to register their illegal guns.....the Supreme Court ruled in Haynes v. United States that criminals who had illegal guns did not have to register them because it would violate their Right against self incrimination.......and as for mass shooters....all 3 of the shooters you mentioned...would simply register their guns.....making registering guns pointless.....also......


Canada tried to register guns...this is what happened......

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....we have 400 million guns......



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government.

According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports.

One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.

 

[2aguy]

Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that gun control laws are not going to stop murderers. Do murder laws stop them? Duhhhhhhh.

So you are saying we shouldn't have murder laws?

Nope......what we are saying is focus on those who actually break the law....arrest them....don't worry about normal, law abiding people who own guns...they are not the ones shooting people or using their guns to commit crimes.

If someone uses a gun to commit rape, robbery or murder...you can arrest them...just make sure to put them in jail for 30 years and you will actually be stopping gun crimes....

But creating meaningless laws.....registration, licensing, and universal background checks, don't stop people from using guns to commit those crimes.......they target non criminals. They don't stop criminals, they don't stop mass shooters.....

Why is registration a meaningless law? Just before he pulled the trigger, Hodgkinson and Lanza and Roof were "law abiding citizens". After their crimes, whymshould the source of their weaponry be searched by hand by file clerks using 19th century technology?

And guess what......they were able to find out who owned their guns without registration.......since 2 of them were dead at the scene, with their guns...and the other guy was arrested...

Gun registration did not prevent the crime...and it didn't solve anything afterward...

Registration is desired by the anti gunners simply because it gives them one of the two steps in banning and confiscating guns.....they register first...then, when they have the political power, they ban them and confiscate them..using the registration records to make sure people can't hide their guns......just like the German's did in the 1930s, and the British and Australians did in the 1990s.....

We know how this works...you aren't fooling anyone....

 

[Nosmo King]

Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that gun control laws are not going to stop murderers. Do murder laws stop them? Duhhhhhhh.

So you are saying we shouldn't have murder laws?

Nope......what we are saying is focus on those who actually break the law....arrest them....don't worry about normal, law abiding people who own guns...they are not the ones shooting people or using their guns to commit crimes.

If someone uses a gun to commit rape, robbery or murder...you can arrest them...just make sure to put them in jail for 30 years and you will actually be stopping gun crimes....

But creating meaningless laws.....registration, licensing, and universal background checks, don't stop people from using guns to commit those crimes.......they target non criminals. They don't stop criminals, they don't stop mass shooters.....

Why is registration a meaningless law? Just before he pulled the trigger, Hodgkinson and Lanza and Roof were "law abiding citizens". After their crimes, whymshould the source of their weaponry be searched by hand by file clerks using 19th century technology?

And guess what......they were able to find out who owned their guns without registration.......since 2 of them were dead at the scene, with their guns...and the other guy was arrested...

Gun registration did not prevent the crime...and it didn't solve anything afterward...

Registration is desired by the anti gunners simply because it gives them one of the two steps in banning and confiscating guns.....they register first...then, when they have the political power, they ban them and confiscate them..using the registration records to make sure people can't hide their guns......just like the German's did in the 1930s, and the British and Australians did in the 1990s.....

We know how this works...you aren't fooling anyone....

I live in gun country. Hunting here is what skiing is to Aspen. Every election cycle the NRA runs the same message. Clinton wants your guns. Obama wants your guns. Kerry wants your guns. Carter wants your guns. McGovern wants your guns. Johnson, Kennedy, Stephenson wants your guns.

And gues what? No guns have ever been confiscated.

 

[Two Thumbs]

This is a study by a german group that found....amazingly.....that the primary driver of gun ownership is fear....of criminals.....and that in order to push gun control and disarming gun owners, there will need to be a way to erase this fear of criminals from the gun owner's mind.......

Now the question......do left wing, anti-gunners think there is no such thing as violent criminal attack? Or governments that murder their own people? And this, coming from a German......do they teach German history in German schools?

So.....as one response to the article pointed out.....is buying a fire extinguisher, car insurance, home insurance teaching kids stop, drop and roll....are they acts of fear, or acts of intelligence...?

New Study: Handgun Owners Are Motivated By Fear - The Truth About Guns

“New research finds the strongest motivation to buy handguns is the vague but deeply held perception that we live in a dangerous world,” psmag.com reports. Huh. Who’d a guessed it?

Ah, but the troika of academics behind Is It a Dangerous World Out There?: The Motivational Bases of American Gun Ownership reckon that handgun buyers are motivated by “two distinct impulses.”

Which would be “the specific perceived threat of assault, and a diffuse threat of a dangerous world.” So it’s the difference between that guy might try to kill me vs. someone might try to kill me. Guess which one’s the stronger of the two?

A research team led by University of Groningen psychologist Wolfgang Stroebe [not shown] reports that second, vague notion of potential peril is the stronger of the two—and the one most resistant to rethinking.

Wait. Who said that handgun owners need to stop thinking they live in a dangerous world? Why would they want to do that? Oh right.

Someone who doesn’t want Americans to keep and bear handguns! ‘Cause if they “rethought” their world view, seeing the world for the unicorn pooping rainbows place that it really is, they’d stop buying and carrying handguns and the world would be safer!

Yeah, not buying it.

“This [resistance] could make it difficult to conduct persuasion campaigns aimed at dissuading handgun owners of the need to own a gun (or support limitations on gun ownership),” they write. That’s because “a broader system of beliefs about the nature of the social world, and what people are like, is extremely difficult to influence.”

Not to go all Godwin’s Law, but perhaps Goebbels‘ ghost would like to opine on how anti-gunners could “influence” gun owners’ “broader system of beliefs about the nature of the social world” to convince handgun owners to surrender their firearms or make it exceedingly difficult for a civilian to own one?

No matter how you look at it, this particular piece of academic anti-gun animus is a special blend of stupid and scary. Which is why the Huffington Post was on it like Scott Diseck on anything female. Their story New Study Says Fear of Crime, Danger Drives American Handgun Ownership is helpfully sub-headed Handgun owners are more fearful of crime, even when it is unlikely.

“While the primary goal of the research is to serve as a building block for further study, Stroebe does think there’s some practical application. ‘If we want to help people conquer their fears, we have to recognize that a sense of threat can have multiple layers and each layer may have to be addressed separately,’ he said.”

The hate group called the DNC thinks the government can prevent all crime.
the hate group called the Dem party thinks killing someone that is trying to rape you is an evil act.

we simply can't reason with people that feel like this.

 

[2aguy]

Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that gun control laws are not going to stop murderers. Do murder laws stop them? Duhhhhhhh.

So you are saying we shouldn't have murder laws?

Nope......what we are saying is focus on those who actually break the law....arrest them....don't worry about normal, law abiding people who own guns...they are not the ones shooting people or using their guns to commit crimes.

If someone uses a gun to commit rape, robbery or murder...you can arrest them...just make sure to put them in jail for 30 years and you will actually be stopping gun crimes....

But creating meaningless laws.....registration, licensing, and universal background checks, don't stop people from using guns to commit those crimes.......they target non criminals. They don't stop criminals, they don't stop mass shooters.....

Why is registration a meaningless law? Just before he pulled the trigger, Hodgkinson and Lanza and Roof were "law abiding citizens". After their crimes, whymshould the source of their weaponry be searched by hand by file clerks using 19th century technology?

And guess what......they were able to find out who owned their guns without registration.......since 2 of them were dead at the scene, with their guns...and the other guy was arrested...

Gun registration did not prevent the crime...and it didn't solve anything afterward...

Registration is desired by the anti gunners simply because it gives them one of the two steps in banning and confiscating guns.....they register first...then, when they have the political power, they ban them and confiscate them..using the registration records to make sure people can't hide their guns......just like the German's did in the 1930s, and the British and Australians did in the 1990s.....

We know how this works...you aren't fooling anyone....

I live in gun country. Hunting here is what skiing is to Aspen. Every election cycle the NRA runs the same message. Clinton wants your guns. Obama wants your guns. Kerry wants your guns. Carter wants your guns. McGovern wants your guns. Johnson, Kennedy, Stephenson wants your guns.

And gues what? No guns have ever been confiscated.

Guns and magazines have been banned........and obama appointed judges and justices who are anti gunners...the 4th circuit court of appeals just ruled that weapons that can be used by the military are not protected by the 2nd amendme, which allows the New Jersey Assault weapon ban to stand.......the clinton's planned on using the courts to force the gun makers to do what they wanted...I have posted their plans before........


They want the guns...but democrats have lost elections...so they are shifting to the courts...

 

[JoeMoma]

Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that gun control laws are not going to stop murderers. Do murder laws stop them? Duhhhhhhh.

So you are saying we shouldn't have murder laws?

Nope......what we are saying is focus on those who actually break the law....arrest them....don't worry about normal, law abiding people who own guns...they are not the ones shooting people or using their guns to commit crimes.

If someone uses a gun to commit rape, robbery or murder...you can arrest them...just make sure to put them in jail for 30 years and you will actually be stopping gun crimes....

But creating meaningless laws.....registration, licensing, and universal background checks, don't stop people from using guns to commit those crimes.......they target non criminals. They don't stop criminals, they don't stop mass shooters.....

Why is registration a meaningless law? Just before he pulled the trigger, Hodgkinson and Lanza and Roof were "law abiding citizens". After their crimes, whymshould the source of their weaponry be searched by hand by file clerks using 19th century technology?

And guess what......they were able to find out who owned their guns without registration.......since 2 of them were dead at the scene, with their guns...and the other guy was arrested...

Gun registration did not prevent the crime...and it didn't solve anything afterward...

Registration is desired by the anti gunners simply because it gives them one of the two steps in banning and confiscating guns.....they register first...then, when they have the political power, they ban them and confiscate them..using the registration records to make sure people can't hide their guns......just like the German's did in the 1930s, and the British and Australians did in the 1990s.....

We know how this works...you aren't fooling anyone....

I live in gun country. Hunting here is what skiing is to Aspen. Every election cycle the NRA runs the same message. Clinton wants your guns. Obama wants your guns. Kerry wants your guns. Carter wants your guns. McGovern wants your guns. Johnson, Kennedy, Stephenson wants your guns.

And gues what? No guns have ever been confiscated.

Guess the message run by the NRA is working.

 

[Nosmo King]

So you are saying we shouldn't have murder laws?

Nope......what we are saying is focus on those who actually break the law....arrest them....don't worry about normal, law abiding people who own guns...they are not the ones shooting people or using their guns to commit crimes.

If someone uses a gun to commit rape, robbery or murder...you can arrest them...just make sure to put them in jail for 30 years and you will actually be stopping gun crimes....

But creating meaningless laws.....registration, licensing, and universal background checks, don't stop people from using guns to commit those crimes.......they target non criminals. They don't stop criminals, they don't stop mass shooters.....

Why is registration a meaningless law? Just before he pulled the trigger, Hodgkinson and Lanza and Roof were "law abiding citizens". After their crimes, whymshould the source of their weaponry be searched by hand by file clerks using 19th century technology?

And guess what......they were able to find out who owned their guns without registration.......since 2 of them were dead at the scene, with their guns...and the other guy was arrested...

Gun registration did not prevent the crime...and it didn't solve anything afterward...

Registration is desired by the anti gunners simply because it gives them one of the two steps in banning and confiscating guns.....they register first...then, when they have the political power, they ban them and confiscate them..using the registration records to make sure people can't hide their guns......just like the German's did in the 1930s, and the British and Australians did in the 1990s.....

We know how this works...you aren't fooling anyone....

I live in gun country. Hunting here is what skiing is to Aspen. Every election cycle the NRA runs the same message. Clinton wants your guns. Obama wants your guns. Kerry wants your guns. Carter wants your guns. McGovern wants your guns. Johnson, Kennedy, Stephenson wants your guns.

And gues what? No guns have ever been confiscated.

Guess the message run by the NRA is working.

And I guess they let stupid, gullible, suspicious people into polling stations.

 

[FA_Q2]

Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that gun control laws are not going to stop murderers. Do murder laws stop them? Duhhhhhhh.

So you are saying we shouldn't have murder laws?

Nope......what we are saying is focus on those who actually break the law....arrest them....don't worry about normal, law abiding people who own guns...they are not the ones shooting people or using their guns to commit crimes.

If someone uses a gun to commit rape, robbery or murder...you can arrest them...just make sure to put them in jail for 30 years and you will actually be stopping gun crimes....

But creating meaningless laws.....registration, licensing, and universal background checks, don't stop people from using guns to commit those crimes.......they target non criminals. They don't stop criminals, they don't stop mass shooters.....

Why is registration a meaningless law? Just before he pulled the trigger, Hodgkinson and Lanza and Roof were "law abiding citizens". After their crimes, whymshould the source of their weaponry be searched by hand by file clerks using 19th century technology?

You answered your own question.

Registration would have done literally nothing to prevent or help defend from those crimes.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[DonaldReagan]

I think it is not so much that the statists don't think those attacks will happen, so much as they trust the government (police) to defend them, and nobody else needs to own a gun because it could kill people