I don't see what that has to do with the question he posed. If that's one's reason for not owning a firearm, that's good by me. I'm certainly not in the "let's arm everyone" camp.
Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread
- Status
I don't see what that has to do with the question he posed. If that's one's reason for not owning a firearm, that's good by me. I'm certainly not in the "let's arm everyone" camp.
Maybe, but not really what I meant. I actually do care what you guys find valid/reasonable. Probably not enough to change laws about what I can and cannot own, but interested nonetheless.
But in the abstract, I'm asking why his opinion expressed in that post matters to the question of gun rights.
So you agree that you don't care but in this instance it wasn't your actual point.
When you make comments like the below it's hard to see that you go into discussions with an open mind and actually care for debate.
"Arguing with liberals on liberal boards is... ...very similar to not being a Trump supporter on this board. Liberal - [civil question] Me - [polite, explanatory answer] Liberal - SO NICE TO KNOW YOU VALUE YOUR BLOODLUST MORE THAN THE LIVES OF MY CHILD YOU ARE WHATS WRONG WITH THE WORLD..."
Well, he said he was sick of 'personal protection' being given as a reason for gun ownership.
You said why should gun owners give a crap what he thinks (to paraphrase)
and I said they should give a crap because he, like alot of us, may be concerned for his/our safety when the system fails.
Hope that clears up your confusion.
Well, you made it two posts, Steve, so that's something.
... and that's a bad thing why?
You apply restrictions because the proliferation of what you need to restrict is causing issues. So you restrict to the point where the problem ceases to be a public concern.
So yes, small restrictions would be a start. If by some miracle the small concessions work, then great. If they don't, apply more, as you still need to fix the issue.
Saying that you're afraid of some restrictions 'eventually breaking the dam' is like saying you only want to try putting a plaster on an amputated leg and, if that doesn't work, don't try anything else.
Sorry, still confused, you'll have to help me more. Why are gun owners to be concerned with your opinion about whether personal protection is a valid justification for exercising one of their personal liberties, and how does your additional opinion about your own personal safety make any difference?
I don't know if you're American, but if so, you're only helping my point with cheese.
As for your post, we're just on opposite sides of the issue most likely.
You do know that ownership of guns for these reasons are also perfectly legal in the UK with a licence right?
Yet we have 98.25% fewer gun related homicides per 100'000 people in this country. Weird that.
It is weird. Sounds like it can't just be guns then.
Not at all - I'm saying that the irrational fear of a total ban on guns if you let some restrictions apply is ridiculous, which is what cheese is saying. The reality is that, sure, some restrictions may lead to more restrictions, but it will all be aiming to create a system where you'll still have your guns. They won't be taken away; you'll just have them in a way which relies on common sense regulation rather than a free for all.
Again, we have guns in the UK. They are regulated for sporting, collector and practical use. They aren't common because it's not in our culture, but they are regulated to allow those that enjoy them as a hobby or for working purposes to use them. But they have to prove they are safe and responsible owners - you know, like getting a driving licence proves you know how to at least perform the basics of driving a car, instead of giving every 18 year old the keys to one and saying figure it out.
Silly response.
In the UK, 2.8 guns per 100 people.
In the USA, 101 guns per 100 people.
So yeah, in a bizarre twist, people having more guns means people use guns more. Whuddathunkit.
Is the fear of a ban on all guns in the US irrational? Probably, I agree. But that's about the extent of it. You acknowledge some restrictions will lead to more restrictions until we're satisfied the problem is remedied. My belief, based on pretty sound reasoning, I think, is that the problem won't be remedied, if at all, until we get to the point of severe handgun limitations/bans/confiscations.
Gosh, sounds like we could use some good research on the subject.
(broken record plays again.)
Only mildly silly. I have no doubt that the number of guns is a significant contributor to the amount of gun crime. I do, of course, think that straight comparisons of states with wildly different systems of public health, demographic stews, cultural leanings, etc. is also silly.
- Status