Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
big_dog

Tougher Gun Laws - Yea or Nea

1,669 posts in this topic

This is a picture of my middle daughter shooting it.  You can see the charging handle on the right side of the receiver.

31430269_10212509112859859_7577512930913

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

That may be the case.  From my perspective, I'm willing to leave you alone to live your life, and from my perspective, you don't grant me the same courtesy.  I do think that's because of a culture gap, but I'm not sure why your cultural preference should prevail.

Did you happen to grow up around guns at all?  Have you hunted?  Did your family own guns and hunt?  I think those things make a difference honestly.  If you have lived that life and reject it, then at least you can see where I'm coming from.  But I get the feeling you did not, though I don't want to assume that -- hence the questions.

i've owned a rifle as an adult, but it was purely for recreation and target-shooting. i realized i wasn't capable of hunting animals. i sold my rifle shortly after sandy hook, which i'll admit has played a very large role in the evolution of my thoughts on firearms. 

i don't look at guns with disgust. shooting guns is fun. i also recognize that there are valid reasons to own a firearm, which is why i've never advocated for confiscations or complete bans. 

but this is why i've related the conversation to gas-powered automobiles. i love cars. i love cars with big, wasteful v8 engines. i own a mustang with one. my dad has owned a couple '69s over the years. but i also recognize that at some point, society is almost certainly going to decide that my enjoyment of driving is a secondary concern to the safety and environmental upsides of automated driving and electrical cars. it's going to suck, but i cannot selfishly put my individual interests over the utilitarian interests of the general public.

just how i see it.

bdog 29 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Some of my heirlooms are semi-automatic rifles, including the one I mentioned that my kids are learning to shoot with.

So you do care about my collection of heirlooms.

which would be grandfathered in.

JDaveG likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

 

Did you happen to grow up around guns at all?  Have you hunted?  Did your family own guns and hunt?  I think those things make a difference honestly.  If you have lived that life and reject it, then at least you can see where I'm coming from.  But I get the feeling you did not, though I don't want to assume that -- hence the questions.

Yes, Yes, and Yes.

I have said numerous times, that I like guns. I've changed my perspective on gun ownership as I've seen the results of people who shouldn't own guns, owning them.

 

As for this debate, we seem to be stuck in a rut, where one side says "Guns make it easier to kill" and the other side saying "gun's don't kill, people do". There's some validity to both sides. On one hand, guns don't just walk out of the house and shoot people. On the other hand, guns make it much easier to carry out actions in the "heat of the moment". To that point, that explains why we see higher rates of suicide in areas where guns are readily available as opposed to places where they are not. We also see higher rates of gun violence. There's a reason the US has such a high number of firearm related deaths. It's because we have more guns. I think the last time I looked, we were rated like 31st in gun violence. But the 30 in front of us were borderline 3rd world countries. That says something.

 

Also, the whole notion that removing firearms from the situation wouldn't change the outcome is false. Would someone use their hands instead of a gun? Unlikely, but it could happen. Would someone use a knife? Maybe, but the damage done by a blade is often less sever than a bullet.

 

The framing of the discussion is wrong, and that's because both sides fall into an emotional trap. They have an emotional response. When you remove the emotion, whatever one that may be, you can start to understand.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, achilles return said:

which would be grandfathered in.

That solves that problem.  Would they then be able to be passed down to their kids one day?

If so, I'm thinking this is largely an exercise in futility.  If not, then we're simply punting the problem a step down the line.

FWIW, this is a picture of the same daughter shooting a firearm with an identical caliber, albeit in a larger centerfire casing and a fair bit more powerful.  Ironically, though, the reason I chose this one is to allow her to get used to the concept of recoil without actually causing pain (which can cause flinching and target panic).  So it wasn't that it was so much more powerful than the .22 LR as that it was so much less powerful than my other rifles (.300 Magnum, 7mm Magnum and .270 Winchester).

To me, the notion that the former is appropriate for private ownership but not the latter is based on fear more than any factual analysis.  The second one is certainly capable of doing more damage than the first, but far less than my bolt guns.  It is also capable of a higher capacity than either, but I've mentioned I'd be fine with a reasonable magazine capacity restriction.  

31432773_10211534539938517_1974767585505

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, achilles return said:

i've owned a rifle as an adult, but it was purely for recreation and target-shooting. i realized i wasn't capable of hunting animals. i sold my rifle shortly after sandy hook, which i'll admit has played a very large role in the evolution of my thoughts on firearms. 

i don't look at guns with disgust. shooting guns is fun. i also recognize that there are valid reasons to own a firearm, which is why i've never advocated for confiscations or complete bans. 

but this is why i've related the conversation to gas-powered automobiles. i love cars. i love cars with big, wasteful v8 engines. i own a mustang with one. my dad has owned a couple '69s over the years. but i also recognize that at some point, society is almost certainly going to decide that my enjoyment of driving is a secondary concern to the safety and environmental upsides of automated driving and electrical cars. it's going to suck, but i cannot selfishly put my individual interests above that over the utilitarian interests of the general public.

just how i see it.

Ditto. All the guns went away after that. 2 reasons...

1. I didn't want to be responsible if my gun ended up killing someone.

2. I had 2 small kids. Despite how much I love them, train them, and prepare them for life, I can't stop events from occurring. Everyone has a bad day. Some brush it off and move on, some don't. I couldn't live with myself if one of my kids had a bad day and decided in the heat of the moment to hurt themselves or someone else.

 

 

I feel the same way with cars. I love racecars. Just bought one. my 2017 WRX will be here Friday. But, I also know that it is unsustainable. Which is why my wife drives a 2017 Ford Fusion Energi...

bdog 29 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JDaveG said:

That solves that problem.  Would they then be able to be passed down to their kids one day?

If so, I'm thinking this is largely an exercise in futility.  If not, then we're simply punting the problem a step down the line.

FWIW, this is a picture of the same daughter shooting a firearm with an identical caliber, albeit in a larger centerfire casing and a fair bit more powerful.  Ironically, though, the reason I chose this one is to allow her to get used to the concept of recoil without actually causing pain (which can cause flinching and target panic).  So it wasn't that it was so much more powerful than the .22 LR as that it was so much less powerful than my other rifles (.300 Magnum, 7mm Magnum and .270 Winchester).

sure.

i don't think it is. the policies i envisioned were entirely about the longterm. there is no immediate solution, and there is no erasing 300 million firearms. banning the manufacturer and sale of new semi-automatic handguns and rifles would not really mean much tomorrow, but in five decades?

had a .308 and my college roommate had a 7mm rem mag. i absolutely hated shooting his gun. 

JDaveG likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, achilles return said:

i've owned a rifle as an adult, but it was purely for recreation and target-shooting. i realized i wasn't capable of hunting animals. i sold my rifle shortly after sandy hook, which i'll admit has played a very large role in the evolution of my thoughts on firearms. 

i don't look at guns with disgust. shooting guns is fun. i also recognize that there are valid reasons to own a firearm, which is why i've never advocated for confiscations or complete bans.

As to this, I'm still curious -- did your family hunt? Even though you realized you weren't capable of hunting animals (I completely respect that, by the way), did they ever take you hunting with them?

I'm not trying to pry -- just trying to understand the culture that formed you.  I didn't hunt anything other than birds, squirrel and rabbits until I was an adult.  My wife's father was an avid deer hunter.  Most of my friends owned guns and hunted.  I think it's hard to understand how deeply embedded that culture is without coming from it.  It doesn't mean you can't try, and to some extent learn to understand, only that it's harder if you didn't grow up in it.

My cousin and I carried that same .22 rifle in the woods behind my grandfather's house.  We hunted squirrel with it and with shotguns.  We hunted quail in the pasture behind his house.  My grandfather had a 12 gauge coach gun above his bedroom door, hung up there by 2 16 penny nails.    This isn't just academic to me.  This is how we were raised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JDaveG said:

As to this, I'm still curious -- did your family hunt? Even though you realized you weren't capable of hunting animals (I completely respect that, by the way), did they ever take you hunting with them?

I'm not trying to pry -- just trying to understand the culture that formed you.  I didn't hunt anything other than birds, squirrel and rabbits until I was an adult.  My wife's father was an avid deer hunter.  Most of my friends owned guns and hunted.  I think it's hard to understand how deeply embedded that culture is without coming from it.  It doesn't mean you can't try, and to some extent learn to understand, only that it's harder if you didn't grow up in it.

My cousin and I carried that same .22 rifle in the woods behind my grandfather's house.  We hunted squirrel with it and with shotguns.  We hunted quail in the pasture behind his house.  My grandfather had a 12 gauge coach gun above his bedroom door, hung up there by 2 16 penny nails.    This isn't just academic to me.  This is how we were raised.

nah, my immediately family has never hunted. there were no guns in my household until i bought a rifle when i was ~19.

and i recognize there there is a genuine culture around hunting that i have no intention of disparaging or diminishing in any way.  

JDaveG likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, achilles return said:

sure.

i don't think it is. the policies i envisioned were entirely about the longterm. there is no immediate solution, and there is no erasing 300 million firearms. banning the manufacturer and sale of new semi-automatic handguns and rifles would not really mean much tomorrow, but in five decades?

had a .308 and my college roommate had a 7mm rem mag. i absolutely hated shooting his gun. 

You should shoot my .300.  The first shot is exhilarating.  After about the third it is pure pain.  The 7 Mag kicks, but it's not all that much worse than the .270, which surprised me at how much it kicked.  I didn't grow up shooting centerfire rifles much, so I wasn't prepared that it kicked a lot more than a .30-30.

I love that .300, and it's one that wasn't an heirloom.  I got it as a fee in a divorce case about 15 years ago. But if I ever get out west to hunt elk, it's going with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, achilles return said:

nah, my immediately family has never hunted. there were no guns in my household until i bought a rifle when i was ~19.

I thought that might be the case.  I can understand how it's hard to see it from our perspective.  It's honestly hard for me to see it from yours.  We grew up with guns.  They were a part of life.  They put meat on the table and protected the home.  And while I didn't do much deer hunting at all, and none until I was grown, everyone I knew did.  My grandfather used to raise hogs -- he used a .22 pistol to slaughter them.  It was just something we grew up with.  

I sort of live in a place between that world and yours right now.  We still live out in the country, but there are houses close by and I couldn't shoot a hog in my yard without causing a fuss.  But there is hunting land within walking distance, and a lot of farms and so forth.  So I don't live on the type of homestead my grandfather did, but I do live in that sort of area.  And I would have no compunction about taking a shotgun out in the yard if I saw a coyote or something like that.  I'd just have to aim toward the woods and not the road or other houses.  Nobody would think much of it, and if anything, the neighbors would probably thank me for dispatching the predator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, achilles return said:

the gap here that can't be bridged is that i simply don't think the interests of gun owners that will never shoot anyone is outweighed by the social and human costs of living in a society where guns are both accessible and prevalent. 

that being said, i've consistently advocated policies that merely discouraged longterm or frivolous gun ownership, and i haven't advocated confiscation or anything.

 

18 hours ago, achilles return said:

i don't care about your collection of heirlooms. it is not my concern. i care about semi-automatic handguns and rifles. i've advocated banning the manufacturer and sale of new firearms that match this description.

 

and so it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, JDaveG said:

You should shoot my .300.  The first shot is exhilarating.  After about the third it is pure pain.  The 7 Mag kicks, but it's not all that much worse than the .270, which surprised me at how much it kicked.  I didn't grow up shooting centerfire rifles much, so I wasn't prepared that it kicked a lot more than a .30-30.

I love that .300, and it's one that wasn't an heirloom.  I got it as a fee in a divorce case about 15 years ago. But if I ever get out west to hunt elk, it's going with me.

Next time you get a 1967 Ford Shelby GT 500 mustang as a fee, hit me up for a cash flip.

 

JDaveG likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Doug Carlton said:

 

 

and so it goes.

huh? that wasn't a "**** you and your collection", it was a "your collection is not the priority here"

sorry if that was worded ambiguously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

Yes, Yes, and Yes.

I have said numerous times, that I like guns. I've changed my perspective on gun ownership as I've seen the results of people who shouldn't own guns, owning them.

 

As for this debate, we seem to be stuck in a rut, where one side says "Guns make it easier to kill" and the other side saying "gun's don't kill, people do". There's some validity to both sides. On one hand, guns don't just walk out of the house and shoot people. On the other hand, guns make it much easier to carry out actions in the "heat of the moment". To that point, that explains why we see higher rates of suicide in areas where guns are readily available as opposed to places where they are not. We also see higher rates of gun violence. There's a reason the US has such a high number of firearm related deaths. It's because we have more guns. I think the last time I looked, we were rated like 31st in gun violence. But the 30 in front of us were borderline 3rd world countries. That says something.

 

Also, the whole notion that removing firearms from the situation wouldn't change the outcome is false. Would someone use their hands instead of a gun? Unlikely, but it could happen. Would someone use a knife? Maybe, but the damage done by a blade is often less sever than a bullet.

 

The framing of the discussion is wrong, and that's because both sides fall into an emotional trap. They have an emotional response. When you remove the emotion, whatever one that may be, you can start to understand.

 

I agree there are some people who own guns that shouldn't but i don't think making laws that punish and prevent law biding gun owners from having guns is the answer. There are many older people and alcoholics that shouldn't own a drive / own a vehicle because they are dangerous there are laws to prevent them from driving which is fine but we don't see people trying to make laws saying no one should own a car because some old people, drunk drivers shouldn't drive and the fact that terrorist have used vehicles to mow down large groups of people. Trying to use the argument that guns should be banned because bad people could use them is just a bad argument. I have never believed in punishing the whole class because johnny is being bad mentality and i never will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brehus said:

I agree there are some people who own guns that shouldn't but i don't think making laws that punish and prevent law biding gun owners from having guns is the answer. There are many older people and alcoholics that shouldn't own a drive / own a vehicle because they are dangerous there are laws to prevent them from driving which is fine but we don't see people trying to make laws saying no one should own a car because some old people, drunk drivers shouldn't drive and the fact that terrorist have used vehicles to mow down large groups of people. Trying to use the argument that guns should be banned because bad people could use them is just a bad argument. I have never believed in punishing the whole class because johnny is being bad mentality and i never will.

I understand this perspective, but you have to look at how we handle things as a country, and how that approach to handling those things effect the outcome.

 

For example, we ban drugs. We maintain those bans because we know that people do drugs and make bad decisions. But the vast majority of drug users never do anything wrong. Never OD, never commit a crime while high, etc. But because we have to account for the dumbest bits of society.

 

Holds true for guns. Responsible gun ownership and negligent gun ownership is really separated by a bunch of grey area. Is having an unlocked, loaded gun in the home negligent or needed for protection? What if there are kids in the home? What if there's a history of mental illness, dependencies, etc.? What if the owner is old, and has a hard time seeing or hearing?

 

There's too many variables to limit ownership on a person by person basis. What may be negligence for one owner may be standard operating procedure for another.

 

 

 

We banned yard darts because people got hurt. We banned Kinder Eggs for decades because some people were too stupid not to eat the toy. Haggis is banned. We've banned incredibly stupid things because incredibly stupid people couldn't use common sense to not kill themselves. But those same people are free to buy a gun, because a small group of people changed their understanding of the text in the 2nd amendment, just a few years ago...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Optimus_Cr1m35 said:

I understand this perspective, but you have to look at how we handle things as a country, and how that approach to handling those things effect the outcome.

 

For example, we ban drugs. We maintain those bans because we know that people do drugs and make bad decisions. But the vast majority of drug users never do anything wrong. Never OD, never commit a crime while high, etc. But because we have to account for the dumbest bits of society.

 

Holds true for guns. Responsible gun ownership and negligent gun ownership is really separated by a bunch of grey area. Is having an unlocked, loaded gun in the home negligent or needed for protection? What if there are kids in the home? What if there's a history of mental illness, dependencies, etc.? What if the owner is old, and has a hard time seeing or hearing?

 

There's too many variables to limit ownership on a person by person basis. What may be negligence for one owner may be standard operating procedure for another.

 

 

 

We banned yard darts because people got hurt. We banned Kinder Eggs for decades because some people were too stupid not to eat the toy. Haggis is banned. We've banned incredibly stupid things because incredibly stupid people couldn't use common sense to not kill themselves. But those same people are free to buy a gun, because a small group of people changed their understanding of the text in the 2nd amendment, just a few years ago...

Nothing you say is going change my opinion and nothing i say is going to charge your opinion i am just glad hildabeast didnt get the chance to appoint two gun control nuts to the supreme court

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0