Gun owner paranoia---

[WTH_Progs?]

Democrats: "We need to keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, and the mentally retarded"

Republican Translation: Them damn Liberals are gonna take all our shootin irons away!!



Why are Republicans so paranoid about guns? America has more guns in circulation than they have people. A few less guns in the hands of criminals and children seems like common sense to me.

From what I understand the OP doesn't meet the clean start program randomly practiced.

BTW OP, you're WRONG.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Golly, this is like Whack-A-Mole.
One more time, all together now:

• Knives ain't guns
• Automobiles ain't guns.
• Swimming pools ain't guns.
• One doesn't cut carrots with a Glock.

Guns are a tool of society that holds it' own specialized category. Like poison does. Like explosives do.

As such, whoever brings that tool into our society inherits or is levied with a greater responsibility than the moke who buys a hammer or a paring knife.

The gun owner, and I am one and have been for many years, must accept that his 'tool' is uniquely dangerous. Particularly so when in the hands of an individual who has ill-intentions, or even no intention at all, but is unknowing, e.g. a child.

The gun carries with it, by it's nature, a potential for damage, injury, and lethality. Far more than society's other useful tools. Poisons and explosives, duly noted.

The individual who becomes the agency of it's introduction to society .....the buyer, or owner of record.....must acknowledge the potential for harm. And be willing to accept the responsibility and liability if that specialized tool does harm.

If you own it.
You own it.
It's benefits. It's liabilities.
Get a specialized insurance policy if you don't want to bear that liability solely.

Any "tool" in the hands of a killer is a killer tool. They are all equally the same. What's the difference if some maniac stabs four people to death or the other maniac shoots four people to death? Four people are dead no matter what the means.

We on the right understand that guns are completely harmless. It's the wrong people using them for nefarious reasons that's dangerous, just like the wrong people using knives, the wrong people using a baseball bat, the wrong people using the internet.

I don't keep my guns under lock and key because I live alone. No children have access to my apartment. And I'm not about to buy an $800.00 safe to try and stop a potential thief that breaks into my home while I'm away to steal them.

A gun is a tool that projects a piece of metal to penetrate various things. It could be targets at the range, it could be an animal for sport or food, it could be another human being. Knives are designed to cut and put holes into things. I can be used to cut food, cut open a box, to put a hole in a piece of plastic, and yes, to kill a person.

If we make laws to force people to insure all their various potential killing tools, then we need to do it for all of them, not just guns. Years ago I studied martial arts to black belt. By the time I was done, I learned how to kill somebody five different was in three moves or less. Should I have insured myself?

 

[Chillicothe]

Any "tool" in the hands of a killer is a killer tool. They are all equally the same.

Umm, as a gun owner..... I know that is way wrong.
My guns are different......practically, functionally different.
To say a gun is the same as a baseball bat or a knife is, well, ignoring some very real realities of firearms.
Would that Stephen Pollack had only taken your knife up to the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay.
Maybe the death and injury horror would have been slightly different.
What do you think?

"If we make laws to force people to insure all their various potential killing tools, then we need to do it for all of them, not just guns."

No, as has been articulated several times ---- guns are different. They possess potentialities for lethalness your hacksaw does not. Frame it this way ----- would that the 2yr old walk around with your hacksaw ...or your SigSauer?

Years ago I studied martial arts...... I learned how to kill somebody five different was in three moves or less. Should I have insured myself?

Would that Stephen Pollack had taken only his black-belt up to the 32nd floor. Do you think the death & casualty rate would be noticeably different?
BTW, it was 60 dead, 867 injured. And he did it from 10:05 to 10:15.

Some black-belt, no?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Umm, as a gun owner..... I know that is way wrong.
My guns are different......practically, functionally different.
To say a gun is the same as a baseball bat or a knife is, well, ignoring some very real realities of firearms.
Would that Stephen Pollack had only taken your knife up to the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay.
Maybe the death and injury horror would have been slightly different.
What do you think?

What I think is you are using anomalies to try and make a point.

A gun is more convenient, can strike a target from a distance unlike a knife or club, but just as deadly. For mass killings, terrorists have used U-Haul trucks to roll over people like rubber toy solders. I understand in parts of Europe, they had to put up concrete posts along the sidewalk just to give shoppers a peace of mind, just like some store owners here put them in their parking lots to stop thieves from crashing through the glass and loading an ATM machine in back of a truck.

 

[Canon Shooter]

It depends on the regulations employed. Most conservatives are fine with psychological background checks. What people object to are arbitrary limits on magazine sizes, arbitrary limits on semiauto rifles, or red flag laws that are vaguely worded and easily abused.

What do you mean by a psychological background check, because this conservative is not behind that.

Well, for example, having a background check that prohibits paranoid schizophrenics from having guns. There are extreme mental illnesses that make it dangerous for a person to have a gun.

We already have that law.

Well, the background check wouldn't prohibit anything. It would merely identify those to whom the law should be applied...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It’s important to not lose sight of the fact that conservatives’ obsession with ‘bans’ and ‘confiscation’ is totally unfounded and devoid of merit.

There will not be a ‘new’ AWB.

No guns will be ‘confiscated.’

Conservatives propagate lies about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscation’ in an effort to divide the American people and undermine the political process – the same reasons why they lie about everything else.

It's nothing but rightwing lies, fearmongering, and demagoguery.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It’s important to not lose sight of the fact that conservatives’ obsession with ‘bans’ and ‘confiscation’ is totally unfounded and devoid of merit.

There will not be a ‘new’ AWB.

No guns will be ‘confiscated.’

Conservatives propagate lies about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscation’ in an effort to divide the American people and undermine the political process – the same reasons why they lie about everything else.

It's nothing but rightwing lies, fearmongering, and demagoguery.

If that's what you think, go to Biden's very own website and read his anti-gun agenda. Read the summaries of what's in this gun bill they are trying to pass.

 

[Shawnee_b]

You must know different conservatives than I do then. Ray brought up some valid concerns with these checks, but if the criteria are limited to extreme illnesses, then why would a check be bad?

Because it would only be a starting point. If they could get away with that, they will keep narrowing the parameters of what is considered mental illness. It will eventually evolve into seeing a shrink for depression of your divorce will lead you into not being allowed to own a firearm for the rest of your life.

VA been doing that a long time now. Last visit 9 years ago and it won't happen again. I wouldn't take their shoebox full of drugs they push on every single Veteran. They told me I had to see a shrink because I wouldn't take their drugs. Not to mention every visit "do you own any guns?"

 

[Shawnee_b]

]

all ready covered, if someone is adjudged to have a mental problem they can not buy firearms. the problem is states don't report to the system.

THat's right. 20000 gun laws on the books that don't get enforced, they want more. Look at the AF guy kicked out on a BCD. He went postal and even the AF never reported him. "common sense gun laws" Yeah right. The mental issue was law'ed up with Brady act.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Actually the number of guns per capita is less in urban areas than it is in other places.

The number of legal guns maybe.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

VA been doing that a long time now. Last visit 9 years ago and it won't happen again. I wouldn't take their shoebox full of drugs they push on every single Veteran. They told me I had to see a shrink because I wouldn't take their drugs. Not to mention every visit "do you own any guns?"

Some of these head shrinkers have already openly stated they think anybody that has a desire to own a firearm has mental problems. They are not to be trusted.

 

[2aguy]

1,500 people are killed a year by knives or some other sharp object. If somebody steals a knife out of your silverware drawer, should you be held responsible if they use your knife to stab somebody do death with it?

Golly, this is like Whack-A-Mole.
One more time, all together now:

• Knives ain't guns
• Automobiles ain't guns.
• Swimming pools ain't guns.
• One doesn't cut carrots with a Glock.

Guns are a tool of society that holds it' own specialized category. Like poison does. Like explosives do.

As such, whoever brings that tool into our society inherits or is levied with a greater responsibility than the moke who buys a hammer or a paring knife.

The gun owner, and I am one and have been for many years, must accept that his 'tool' is uniquely dangerous. Particularly so when in the hands of an individual who has ill-intentions, or even no intention at all, but is unknowing, e.g. a child.

The gun carries with it, by it's nature, a potential for damage, injury, and lethality. Far more than society's other useful tools. Poisons and explosives, duly noted.

The individual who becomes the agency of it's introduction to society .....the buyer, or owner of record.....must acknowledge the potential for harm. And be willing to accept the responsibility and liability if that specialized tool does harm.

If you own it.
You own it.
It's benefits. It's liabilities.
Get a specialized insurance policy if you don't want to bear that liability solely.

A gun is not "uniquely" dangerous.......

Cars killed 39,107 people in 2019....according to the CDC....

Gun murder in 2019 ? 10,258......of those killed 70-80% were criminals murdered by other criminals......

You save more lives if you ban cars....you dim wit.

So you don't know what you are talking about.

You shit heads want to force people to buy insurance because it makes it more difficult for normal people to own and carry guns.....lie about it all you want, but sell that B.S. to democrats...they are the only ones dumb enough to believe you.

 

[2aguy]

VA been doing that a long time now. Last visit 9 years ago and it won't happen again. I wouldn't take their shoebox full of drugs they push on every single Veteran. They told me I had to see a shrink because I wouldn't take their drugs. Not to mention every visit "do you own any guns?"

Some of these head shrinkers have already openly stated they think anybody that has a desire to own a firearm has mental problems. They are not to be trusted.

And then you have the licensing boards for the profession...who will make it their objective to force psychiatrists and other mental health types to keep people from owning and carrying guns....or lose their license....

 

[2aguy]

1,500 people are killed a year by knives or some other sharp object. If somebody steals a knife out of your silverware drawer, should you be held responsible if they use your knife to stab somebody do death with it?

Golly, this is like Whack-A-Mole.
One more time, all together now:

• Knives ain't guns
• Automobiles ain't guns.
• Swimming pools ain't guns.
• One doesn't cut carrots with a Glock.

Guns are a tool of society that holds it' own specialized category. Like poison does. Like explosives do.

As such, whoever brings that tool into our society inherits or is levied with a greater responsibility than the moke who buys a hammer or a paring knife.

The gun owner, and I am one and have been for many years, must accept that his 'tool' is uniquely dangerous. Particularly so when in the hands of an individual who has ill-intentions, or even no intention at all, but is unknowing, e.g. a child.

The gun carries with it, by it's nature, a potential for damage, injury, and lethality. Far more than society's other useful tools. Poisons and explosives, duly noted.

The individual who becomes the agency of it's introduction to society .....the buyer, or owner of record.....must acknowledge the potential for harm. And be willing to accept the responsibility and liability if that specialized tool does harm.

If you own it.
You own it.
It's benefits. It's liabilities.
Get a specialized insurance policy if you don't want to bear that liability solely.

Owning and carrying a gun is a Right.....you do not get to charge a fee for the exercise of that Right....that is all the insurance mandate would be....no different from a Poll Tax or a literacy test...something you guys pulled to keep blacks from voting after the democrats lost the Civil War....

 

[2aguy]

Any "tool" in the hands of a killer is a killer tool. They are all equally the same.

Umm, as a gun owner..... I know that is way wrong.
My guns are different......practically, functionally different.
To say a gun is the same as a baseball bat or a knife is, well, ignoring some very real realities of firearms.
Would that Stephen Pollack had only taken your knife up to the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay.
Maybe the death and injury horror would have been slightly different.
What do you think?

"If we make laws to force people to insure all their various potential killing tools, then we need to do it for all of them, not just guns."

No, as has been articulated several times ---- guns are different. They possess potentialities for lethalness your hacksaw does not. Frame it this way ----- would that the 2yr old walk around with your hacksaw ...or your SigSauer?

Years ago I studied martial arts...... I learned how to kill somebody five different was in three moves or less. Should I have insured myself?

Would that Stephen Pollack had taken only his black-belt up to the 32nd floor. Do you think the death & casualty rate would be noticeably different?
BTW, it was 60 dead, 867 injured. And he did it from 10:05 to 10:15.

Some black-belt, no?

Hey, dipshit...he had a pilots license...he could have killed more people had he flown a private aircraft into the crowd of 22,000 people....you idiot.

And dumb ass.....

In Vegas, firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, with surprise from a concealed and elevated position....he killed 60 and wounded 411 with his rifle...

Meanwhile,

A muslim terrorist in Nice, France murdered 86 people and wounded 434 people....

You don't know what you are talking about......

Meanwhile......as more Americans own and actually carry guns for self defense.....

Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Meanwhile.....

Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct


that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—less some attackers who lost their lives to defenders. This enormous benefit dwarfs, both in human and economic terms, the losses trumpeted by hoplophobes who only choose to see the risk side of the equation.





==============
Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.
--------

It’s one of the antis’ favorite tricks: cost benefit analysis omitting the benefit side of the equation. So what are the financial benefits of firearm ownership to society? Read on . . .

In my post Dennis Henigan on Chardon: Clockwork Edition, I did an analysis of how many lives were saved annually in Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs). I used extremely conservative numbers. Now I am going to use some less conservative ones.
--------------

How can we get a dollar figure from 1.88 million defensive gun uses per year? Never fear, faithful reader, we can count on the .gov to calculate everything.

According to the AZ state government, in February of 2008 a human life was worth $6.5 million. Going to the Inflation Calculator and punching in the numbers gives us a present value of $6.93 million.

So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.

Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.

When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”

Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”

So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.

 

[dannyboys]

I'm a gun owner. Got a bunch of 'em downstairs in the safe. Got my first gun at 11yrs old. Bought it with my chore money. Used to be a member of the NRA. Until they went stupid.

I think American gun-culture is stupid and crazy.
I've long advocated that when a tool of such potential destructive/disruptive potential is brought into our civil society then what comes with it is ----- strict liability.

If there is ANY harm to humans or property after that weapon is fired then the OWNER of the gun bears a significant liability. NOT just the jackass who fired it ....... but also the owner of record.

That means if your Glock is stolen from underneath the seat of your Ford-150 and it is used to shoot somebody's cheatin' wife.....well, the shooter gets arrested and tried, and the owner of the gun gets a whopper of a fine.

It was his gun. He brought it into our society. He failed to secure it adequately. Ergo......he has a share of the responsibility.

THEN.......you would see a more serious, responsible, cautious approach to owning those things.

IMHO

I believe that those who own weapons should buy insurance to cover any and all death, harm and or damage that is caused by that weapon.

A lot of death and destruction has been caused by weapons in the hands of the wrong person. We the taxpayer have to pay for most of it. We the taxpayer shouldn't be liable in any way for the irresponsible actions of other people.

If you don't have that insurance, you go to prison and are never allowed to legally own a weapon again.

Everyone should be fully responsible for their actions or words.

YOU go into any fucking inner city shithole and tell the fucking negro gangbangers you don't appreciate having to pay for the fucking funeral expenses of the gangbanger who got killed while attempting to steal another gangbangers fucking running shoes.
I'm sure they will listen to you BEFORE they blow your stupid fucking head off!
How many gangbangers "OWN" the guns they strut around with?

 

[Chillicothe]

• [*].you dim wit.

• [*]You shit heads

• Hey, dipshit
  [*]

• .you idiot.

• And dumb ass.....

  [*]YOU go into any fucking inner city shithole and tell the fucking negro

• pay for the fucking funeral

• fucking running shoes.

• [*]blow your stupid fucking head off!

  --------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  I mean no disrespect to the two posters quoted multiple times above, but I would posit that there are some folks who appear to be the type that society most especially would NOT want to own a gun.
  
  Just sayin'

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How many gangbangers "OWN" the guns they strut around with?

Better question: How many of them purchased their firearm legally from a gun store and got a background check?

 

[justinacolmena]

I am considered mentally retarded under Democrat law despite having received two bachelor degrees, in mathematics and computer science, from a Democrat university. Guns are banned anyways. They just keep pushing out more and more of the same old life-ruining propaganda from the lies-and-slander department. Mental health shows up on my background check as a felony.

https://dps.alaska.gov/getmedia/784cd6bb-baec-4243-ac79-d7faf65a3398/Firearms-DPS-Frequenty-Asked-Questions-Revised-9-07-18.pdf

Amended Definition of “Adjudicated as a Mental Defective” and “Committed to a Mental Institution” (2010R-21P)

The Department of Justice proposes amending Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regulations to clarify definitions of two categories of persons who are prohibited from receiving, possessing, shipping, or transporting firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968. The proposed...

www.federalregister.gov

I will live to see all of those dirty cops and their crooked drug-dealing doctors suffer and scream in agony when they are punished for what they did to me.

 

[danielpalos]

Insist our legislators do their Job!