Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

How is being able to track a stolen gun going to help decrease deaths caused by stolen guns? You're just going to track the gun back to the rightful owner, after it's too late.

Mandy wrote:How is being able to track a stolen gun going to help decrease deaths caused by stolen guns? You're just going to track the gun back to the rightful owner, after it's too late.

It will stop a lot of guns from entering the black or gray market in the first place. The idea is to stop imports of unregistered weapons, and register the ones that are here.

Omphalos wrote:

Mandy wrote:How is being able to track a stolen gun going to help decrease deaths caused by stolen guns? You're just going to track the gun back to the rightful owner, after it's too late.

It will stop a lot of guns from entering the black or gray market in the first place. The idea is to stop imports of unregistered weapons, and register the ones that are here.

QFT

SwordMaster wrote:

Omphalos wrote:

Mandy wrote:How is being able to track a stolen gun going to help decrease deaths caused by stolen guns? You're just going to track the gun back to the rightful owner, after it's too late.

It will stop a lot of guns from entering the black or gray market in the first place. The idea is to stop imports of unregistered weapons, and register the ones that are here.

QFT

Why don't we just eliminate the source of the black market? Like doctors do, this is only treating a symptom.

Freakzilla wrote:

SwordMaster wrote:

Omphalos wrote:

Mandy wrote:How is being able to track a stolen gun going to help decrease deaths caused by stolen guns? You're just going to track the gun back to the rightful owner, after it's too late.

It will stop a lot of guns from entering the black or gray market in the first place. The idea is to stop imports of unregistered weapons, and register the ones that are here.

QFT

Why don't we just eliminate the source of the black market? Like doctors do, this is only treating a symptom.

Did I just hear you say it's OK to eliminate gun manufacturers? Not sure what you meant there, Freak, but the solution has to be a balanced one. We cant take guns away, and its foolish to leave things the way that they are.

Anyone remember the MASSIVE debate we had on this issue at DN?

Of course I have to stay off of here for most of the day and y'all get into this long debate. Figs.

I think I remember talking about this subject before on here but I could be mistaken. There is no easy solution of course. I believe there are already enough gun laws on the books, they just need to be enforced better. Stories like this do not need to be made up to push the value and reward of proper gain training and ownership.

Not everyone is comfortable with gun ownership nor is everyone mature enough to use a gun, much less own one.

I do not own a handgun, mainly because I just never got around to purchasing one when I had a permit and now my permit has expired and I’ve never bothered to go renew it. My husband owns an M1 Carbine rifle plus a black-powder rifle. Both are in open sight on a gun rack in our room but both (of course) are unloaded.

Our children have been taught the dangers of guns and how to shoot them and the consequences of touching said guns without permission or in the case of extreme danger. Do children disobey their parents, of course they do, and that is why supervision is essential in parenting.

My husband also owns several types of swords and daggers, all of which I have hung up on our bedroom walls. And we own a lab/boxer mix whom I think could take down most any invader, given the children and me either time to get out or to grab one of the weapons to protect ourselves.

Times have changed so much since I was going up. Since many of us on this board was growing up. Things are not as clear-cut as they use to be.

I shot my first shotgun when I was around 9 years old (I think) and my grandparents nor my mother thought a thing was wrong about it. [It was my Granddaddy’s shotgun in fact] And it was my brother who taught me. And he is only 4 years my senior. In fact he ‘forgot’ the shotgun was loaded with buckshot and not birdshot, but still all of them made sure I knew guns could kill. They were not toys to play around with and the only time I was allowed to touch any gun was in the presence of my brother, one of my older cousins, or Granddaddy. I think some people are forgetting to teach their kids that. They see guns as cool. Not as a tool that can be deadly.


I don’t want any of my guns (or swords) to be taken away from me but I also know that with gun ownership comes some major responsibilities. I hope I never have to shoot a gun at another human being; I’m not for sure if I even could if it was just me in danger. But I am sure that given the choice between a criminal’s life and the life of my children or my husband-- well my family will come first and I’ll just have to leave with any guilt that may arise from taking another human’s life in such an unfortunate situation.

Where I live; guns and hunting is just part of life. I would say at least 60 or 70 percent of the homes around here have at least one type of gun inside. In fact it’s not unusual to see rifles and shotguns in the back window of someone’s truck around here, I guess it is mainly what you grow up that will affect your views on guns and gun control. There is no one size fit all. And unfortunately people will still find ways to kill others if they really want to, guns or no guns.


Well, that’s my two cents worth (and then some) for today.

Have at it.

Omphalos wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:

SwordMaster wrote:

Omphalos wrote:

Mandy wrote:How is being able to track a stolen gun going to help decrease deaths caused by stolen guns? You're just going to track the gun back to the rightful owner, after it's too late.

It will stop a lot of guns from entering the black or gray market in the first place. The idea is to stop imports of unregistered weapons, and register the ones that are here.

QFT

Why don't we just eliminate the source of the black market? Like doctors do, this is only treating a symptom.

Did I just hear you say it's OK to eliminate gun manufacturers? Not sure what you meant there, Freak, but the solution has to be a balanced one. We cant take guns away, and its foolish to leave things the way that they are.

Of course not!

Eliminating guns won't eliminate murder.

Take away the reason these people want to kill, not the tools they use to kill.

Anyone remember the MASSIVE debate we had on this issue at DN?

Yes, vaguely.

Freakzilla wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:1. But anti-gun legislation only takes guns away from law abiding citizens, not criminals.

2. The 2nd Amendment is there for two reasons; the formation of militias and overthrowing the government.

Before you argue that citizens could never stand up to the US military, it is illegal to use the Regular Army on US soil.

US servicemen are not required to follow unlawfull orders, either.

I know, I've heard all that before. To play the devils advocate though (remember before you flame though, I actually don't give much of a shit either way, this is just for the sake of debate):

1. As (hand)guns become more and more difficult to obtain (because they aren't everywhere in the first place) and the punishments for armed offences become stiffer and stiffer, fewer and fewer criminals will own them, up until only the most hardcore of the hardcore will have guns (as opposed to now, where any chump tough guy has one), and those are the guys who probably would have murdered you anyways, gun or no gun. And the same people who already own fully automatic rifles and explosives, which the rest of the public cannot legally own, so would we be safer with those weapons too?

I think there's a flaw in your argument. You assume that stiffer punishment = less handguns. That makes absolutely no sense to me. Stiffer punishment only means more crime college... I mean prison... inmates we have to pay for.

Also, I'd still love to see some (reliable)stats on people actually defending themselves vs just making the situation worse or having no effect at all. I'm not saying they don't work for self defense or as a deterrant, I simply don't believe they work enough to justify the dangers of everyone having easy access to handguns.

Could there even be an acurate figure for that without knowing the future? I mean, how do you know pulling out a handgun made things worse unless you do it?

It is better to have a gun an not need it than to need a gun and not have one.

2. I have no opinion on this at all other than that in this case rifles would be much more effective than handguns so removing the sale of handguns shouldn't really have any effect on this at all.

I wasn't even issued a handgun (sidearm) in the Army. I was told, if they get close enough that a handgun would be effective, you fucked up already. But then, part of my job was to direct artillery fire.

The jobs that typically get sidearms are tank crewmembers because it's hard to move around in a tank, much less with a rifle, MPs and Special forces.

BTW, I never mentioned handguns in my previous post.

None of this means I would give up the right to own one.

Just for argument's sake.


How would you feel in a society where anyone was allowed to own and carry any weapon? If you'd be okay with that then that's fine, I understand where you're coming from then, but I don't think most people would - even most so-called pro gun rights people.

If I could trust that all people had received training and were not mentally ill, I wouldn't mind. But I don't live in La-la-land. Regardless of training, mental heath can snap in an instant.

I believe in moderation.

For example, when I quit getting drunk all the time several years back, I never lied to myself and said I would never drink again. I told myself I would learn to drink responsibly and I think I've been pretty successful. Sure, I screw up now and then, but I'm much better off than before. I never asked anyone not to drink around me nor did I ask for prohibition. I learned self control.

We can't expect every person to be responsible enough to handle assault rifles or handguns but why should those few ruin it for the vast majority?

However, if the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is what it says, gun bans of any kind only limit our ability to do those things.

Fair enough, I think my arguments are a little bit stronger than you take them for, but we're both biased on this and I doubt we'll ever take eachother's arguments totally seriously, we each think the other has some flaw in their logic.

If it was just between you and me I bet we could come to an agreement.

It's a shame it can't be that simple in government.

The thing about guns is it is so easy to kill someone with them. Without a gun, what is an easy way to kill someone? Really, if you have to come at me with a knife or blade, now its a phisical contest. So to be a killer you have to be good at it and lets face it, most gun deaths are pussy cowards that would not be able to win a fist fight if their life depended on it.


Seriosly though, without guns, how can you kill some one easily?

SwordMaster wrote:The thing about guns is it is so easy to kill someone with them. Without a gun, what is an easy way to kill someone? Really, if you have to come at me with a knife or blade, now its a phisical contest. So to be a killer you have to be good at it and lets face it, most gun deaths are pussy cowards that would not be able to win a fist fight if their life depended on it.


Seriosly though, without guns, how can you kill some one easily?

Sharing that would but me on the watch list for sure. Killing someone with your bare hands is much easier than you might imagine.

yah but FZ you look like a big fella, 6feet around 200lbs. So am I. so unless you know some heavy martal arts or something, its going to a really difficult fight, and there is no way its easier then pointing and pulling a trigger. If your comming at me with bare hands its going to be a long and hard fight to the death, and a good chance we both become to tierd to land a coup de grâce.

SwordMaster wrote:yah but FZ you look like a big fella, 6feet around 200lbs. So am I. so unless you know some heavy martal arts or something, its going to a really difficult fight, and there is no way its easier then pointing and pulling a trigger. If your comming at me with bare hands its going to be a long and hard fight to the death, and a good chance we both become to tierd to land a coup de grâce.

Well, if you're going to resist it takes a little longer. It would be a lot less painfull if you cooperated.

Freakzilla wrote:

SwordMaster wrote:yah but FZ you look like a big fella, 6feet around 200lbs. So am I. so unless you know some heavy martal arts or something, its going to a really difficult fight, and there is no way its easier then pointing and pulling a trigger. If your comming at me with bare hands its going to be a long and hard fight to the death, and a good chance we both become to tierd to land a coup de grâce.

Well, if you're going to resist it takes a little longer. It would be a lot less painfull if you cooperated.

LOL

Freakzilla wrote:If it was just between you and me I bet we could come to an agreement.

It's a shame it can't be that simple in government.

Probably, I think we're both probably just being stuborn to a degree. You did manage to move my opinion from moderately anti-gun to just mildly anti-handgun in the old debate we had at at DN.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:If it was just between you and me I bet we could come to an agreement.

It's a shame it can't be that simple in government.

Probably, I think we're both probably just being stuborn to a degree. You did manage to move my opinion from moderately anti-gun to just mildly anti-handgun in the old debate we had at at DN.

From what I hear its not the techniques (which may be easy) that could be the trouble but what is going through your head as you perform the technique. Unless they're even quicker than I imagine...

If they are extremely quick, then I suppose anger would allow you to do it, seeing as anger and rational thought are mutually exclusive for most.

SadisticCynic wrote:From what I hear its not the techniques (which may be easy) that could be the trouble but what is going through your head as you perform the technique. Unless they're even quicker than I imagine...

If they are extremely quick, then I suppose anger would allow you to do it, seeing as anger and rational thought are mutually exclusive for most.

Moneo used one of my favorites on Malky, very slow and gruesome too.

Chop to the throat, the victem drowns in their own blood.

Favourites?

Ummm...remind me never to annoy you.

SadisticCynic wrote:Favourites?

Ummm...remind me never to annoy you.

Violence is the last resort of a mediocre mind.
~Albert Einstein

So when its the first response is that the response of a genius or an idiot?

I'm sure that depends on the situation.

SadisticCynic wrote:So when its the first response is that the response of a genius or an idiot?

an idiot

Eyes High wrote:

SadisticCynic wrote:So when its the first response is that the response of a genius or an idiot?

an idiot

So you don't think a first strike is ever justified?

I would be in favor of defense rather than attack, however it is notable that not all attacks are physical. I'm not a pacifist i.e. I won't let people beat on me, but I also don't consider myself an aggressor either (am way too much of a coward to be an aggressor ).