You know, it's been said that gun control isn't about controlling guns, but about controlling people. I've come to realize that the best way to go about "gun control" is to control the people. Instead of trying to limit what access violent offenders can have to guns, why not limit what access those violent offenders can have to people? Granted, it won't stop first time offenders, but it would do a lot more to reduce future violence than the system we have right now.
I am in favor of "people control"
- Thread starter Skribs
- Start date
- Status
CharlieDeltaJuliet
Member
If a drunk driver hits a school us head on and kill everyone, we do not blame the alchol and car companies. Nor the bottle of liquor he drank. We blame the person. The same needs to be said about tragedies like this.
Fast cars kill people, but we keep making them... Etc..
Fast cars kill people, but we keep making them... Etc..
Last edited:
MtnCreek
Member
Sure, we could build places to house the criminals. I say we call them prisons…
mg.mikael
Member
I suppose a cheetah could kill you, but I hope you meant "fast cars."
castile
Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 602
As a gun owner I think we are going to have to give in and do some more regulation on the assault weapons, BTW I call them assault weapons knowing the history of the Strumgrever 44. Gay does not mean the same thing as it did 45 years ago. A semi auto with large mag is what seems to be in the lexicon today so its what we have to go with. To argue over NO NO it means selective fire bla bla bla is to waste time. Maybe to make semi autos similar to NFA weapons. I don't' know but we are not going to win on our old arguments with this one.
mg.mikael
Member
No offense but are you in the wrong place? I think this would better suit you.....http://www.bradycampaign.org/
If you feel it's a waste of time why are you on this website? Please explain why you think that defending and protecting our gun rights isn't important? If you can't explain youself then I have to believe that your simply trolling, looking to spark an argument and nothing more.
Last edited:
Silent Bob
Member.
Sure are a lot of sleeper accounts being dusted off today.
MachIVshooter
Member
This is the exact premise of the argument some of us have that gets us painted as "hardliners" or "no compromise" and even acused of being crazy or malicious.
That premise is: There should be ZERO restrictions on RKBA, because people who have beem deemed to dangerous to have weapons are simply too dangerous to let loose in society.
It's an idealogical standpoint at this juncture, because our legal system and revolving door prisons don't allow us to keep dangerous people where they should be. But the theory is sound.
We require seatbelts to regulate the safety of the vehicle for the user. Similarly, gun manufacturers include safety devices on their weapons to ensure that their use is safe. Also, just as it is illegal to shoot someone (even accidentally), it is illegal to drive unsafe.
No, regulating seat belts is not the same as banning semi-autos. Banning anything capable of going over suburban speed limits is.
No, regulating seat belts is not the same as banning semi-autos. Banning anything capable of going over suburban speed limits is.
CharlieDeltaJuliet
Member
Castile, we do have those requirements. They are NCIS background checks. While they may not be perfect, they are the best choice out of what we have. Same as seat belts have malfunctioned and trapped people. Preventive measures only work under the circumstances they were initially designed for. The fact is we do have problems with people. If they ban guns, they should ban alcohol, fast food, soft drinks, fast cars, ..etc. they are all only as dangerous as the PEOPLE that have them...
Phatty
Member
Of course, you don't really mean ZERO. I assume, for example, that you would be in favor of prohibiting inmates in prison being armed.
HoosierQ
Member
I am calling Troll here. 5 posts doesn't make you one of "we".
buckhorn_cortez
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 532
More gun laws are like more drug laws - they won't work. All you're going to do is create an underground market. If schools are targets, then you need to arm the people at the school - not disarm them and make "gun free zones."
Yeah -gun free zone - that really worked well.
1. Allow people with concealed carry permits to carry in gun free zones.
2. Require a certain amount of people at the school to be trained in response tactics just like airline pilots - and keep guns available at the schools.
3. If 1 and 2 are unacceptable, then there will need to be at least three armed and trained guards at each school.
I know that more restrictions and gun laws are the "feel good" solution but, that is reactive not proactive and provides no defense against the person who obtains a gun illegally - and you know they will do that.
The way to stop shootings is to have the ability to defend yourself by shooting back.
Yeah -gun free zone - that really worked well.
1. Allow people with concealed carry permits to carry in gun free zones.
2. Require a certain amount of people at the school to be trained in response tactics just like airline pilots - and keep guns available at the schools.
3. If 1 and 2 are unacceptable, then there will need to be at least three armed and trained guards at each school.
I know that more restrictions and gun laws are the "feel good" solution but, that is reactive not proactive and provides no defense against the person who obtains a gun illegally - and you know they will do that.
The way to stop shootings is to have the ability to defend yourself by shooting back.
lobo9er
Member
troll
5 posts?
Texan Scott
Member
Ancient Rome placed an enormous value on the rights of a Roman citizen. For instance, a citizen could be arrested by soldiers - verbally. The soldiers were forbidden to bind the hands of an accused citizen or even lay hands on him - because he had been convicted of no crime. They could drag him if he refused to go, even put him down with a sword if he resisted violently ... but as long as he complied with a lawful order, as long as he acted within the law, he was literally untouchable. As a citizen, it was expected that controlling him was unnecessary - as long as the citizen was self-controlled.
I am a self-controlled citizen. It is unnecessary to control me or my guns.
Only a citizen who willfully refuses to be self-controlled must be controlled; occasionally, one who cannot be controlled must be put down.
I am a self-controlled citizen. It is unnecessary to control me or my guns.
Only a citizen who willfully refuses to be self-controlled must be controlled; occasionally, one who cannot be controlled must be put down.
So, how does that have anything to do with the drunk driver hitting the school-bus and killing all of the kids?
We have a background check, that is the "seat belt",
We have the second amendment, that is the "license"
What argument were you trying to make? Because it derailed the fact..
We don't blame the car, thew alcohol, or the bus, etc..
Blame the person and the act.
Just say "no" works even on the almost brain dead. We have laws against all kinds of deviant behavior and certainly enough ( to many IMO) with regards to firearms ........
I listened to a discussion on psychotropic drugs today and the over 49 million individuals who are prescribed them in America. Do a Google search and you might even see how many shooters have had them in their system. Drug inserts talk about all kinds of side effects but....naw that can't be it; duh! 88 people killed this year in mass shootings and many of those were gang bangers doing the gang thing. There are 200 people killed by deer on the roads a year...the emotional side of a debate is needed sometimes to open a door to the facts. the 49 million number is from Google and the 200 deer I heard maybe correct maybe not but interesting and sounds about right to me.
Isaac-1
Member
Ok, as a compromise how does everyone feel about this, any CCW holder can carry in a "gun free zone" if they complete an advanced carry course, that does not exceed 3 times as many hours or 3 times the cost of the basic CCW class in their state, permit license cost must remain the same as regular CCW though?
Isaac, how do you feel about this? Any reporter can write any article they want, so long as the government has determined the subject matter is okay? Gun Free Zones basically mean "we can't fight back" zones.
Also, "compromise", as I've come to learn, means putting gun control advocates one step closer to success. What do they give up for a "compromise"? Nothing. What they do is create laws that create a greater hassle for me, possibly prevent me from defending myself, and don't do a damn thing to stop criminals. So no, I don't want to compromise.
Also, "compromise", as I've come to learn, means putting gun control advocates one step closer to success. What do they give up for a "compromise"? Nothing. What they do is create laws that create a greater hassle for me, possibly prevent me from defending myself, and don't do a damn thing to stop criminals. So no, I don't want to compromise.
- Status
