Poll: Do you think more guns means less crime?
Yes
No
I did until I saw these data
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-04-2015, 08:08 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(13-04-2015 07:46 PM)Losty Wrote:  To be fair, if I had 10,000 guns, I would not be any more likely to commit a crime.

It's not about you or any 1 individual. It's about the small number of people that abuse the privilege.

If you have 10,000 guns, you're obviously enthused about guns and aren't going to be bothered if you have to go through a licence system and have them registered.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2015, 08:26 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(13-04-2015 08:06 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Do you even hear yourself Chas?

Yes, clearly wanting tighter gun laws in America is all a big conspiracy to make the US more of a dictatorship!! mowahahahaha!!

Read what I actually wrote - you don't seem to have understood it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-04-2015, 08:36 PM (This post was last modified: 13-04-2015 08:44 PM by Chas.)
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(13-04-2015 05:31 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Yabut, I do.

You take it so personally, always. It's not about YOU, it's about the American public in general.
You need to look at things from the general overview, the same way everyone else is looking at it.

I was responding to your response to my situation during the discussion about valid reasons to have a firearm, so it seemed it was about me.
And, no, people are not looking at it generally - they are not seeing that the American public lives in various environments.

Quote:You're taking this too personally and emotionally. I don't understand how a man of your intellect and reason can possibly ignore blatant evidence simply because you personally want your guns.

Emotionally? Where? Except for being annoyed with bad argument and ad hominem, please point this out.

Quote:I'm not against people having guns, especially people like you surrounded by man-eatting rabid dogs. I'm against any Dick and Harry getting their hands on guns. Tighter restrictions doesn't stop people having guns it acts to decrease the number of guns over time, and it controls who has guns (ie: you can refuse people that have a criminal history). It also puts a licence system in place similar to a car licence that requires time and money to acquire and could include undergoing a gun test with a certified gun handler. You also need a registry so if guns are sold they are listed under the person with the licence that buys them so they can be traced.

It's not a fix overnight but it's a long term solution to a situation that has gotten truly out of hand.

And as I have previously stated in every fucking gun thread ever, I support reasonable restrictions including training.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
13-04-2015, 10:18 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(13-04-2015 08:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-04-2015 05:31 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  You take it so personally, always. It's not about YOU, it's about the American public in general.
You need to look at things from the general overview, the same way everyone else is looking at it.

I was responding to your response to my situation during the discussion about valid reasons to have a firearm, so it seemed it was about me.
And, no, people are not looking at it generally - they are not seeing that the American public lives in various environments.

Quote:You're taking this too personally and emotionally. I don't understand how a man of your intellect and reason can possibly ignore blatant evidence simply because you personally want your guns.

Emotionally? Where? Except for being annoyed with bad argument and ad hominem, please point this out.

Quote:I'm not against people having guns, especially people like you surrounded by man-eatting rabid dogs. I'm against any Dick and Harry getting their hands on guns. Tighter restrictions doesn't stop people having guns it acts to decrease the number of guns over time, and it controls who has guns (ie: you can refuse people that have a criminal history). It also puts a licence system in place similar to a car licence that requires time and money to acquire and could include undergoing a gun test with a certified gun handler. You also need a registry so if guns are sold they are listed under the person with the licence that buys them so they can be traced.

It's not a fix overnight but it's a long term solution to a situation that has gotten truly out of hand.

And as I have previously stated in every fucking gun thread ever, I support reasonable restrictions including training.

I'm very interested in hearing what you consider reasonable restrictions and training.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 01:18 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(13-04-2015 06:11 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  We keep guns legal - because we trust ourselves.

Those who don't trust themselves and others, want to restrict gun ownership.

Gun ownership is exactly the opposite of paranoia.
I partially agree with you here, actually. I do NOT trust people (as a group), which is part of why I am probably the most anti-gun person on this forum. I said in a gun thread not long ago, "the only world I would be okay with the average citizen owning a gun would be in a world where the average citizen would never need it." Regarding what you said here though, I don't trust others to have the power to kill so easily. If that makes me paranoid, so-be-it. But we don't live in a world where violent crime doesn't exist. We live in a world where curiosity, stupidity, addiction, debt, fear, greed, mental illness, and jealousy have too often lead to using such a device to destroy the lives others. This is usually the part where the "But if not guns then knives/bats/cars......" argument would come out. But I wonder how many would hunt if you could not use a gun? How many are willing to get themselves dirty and physically go through the motions of stabbing or beating another creature to death?

Bleh, I shouldn't get into this conversation.

(13-04-2015 07:46 PM)Losty Wrote:  To be fair, if I had 10,000 guns, I would not be any more likely to commit a crime.
Yeah, I don't agree. No offense.

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adrianime's post
14-04-2015, 04:36 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(13-04-2015 10:18 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(13-04-2015 08:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  I was responding to your response to my situation during the discussion about valid reasons to have a firearm, so it seemed it was about me.
And, no, people are not looking at it generally - they are not seeing that the American public lives in various environments.


Emotionally? Where? Except for being annoyed with bad argument and ad hominem, please point this out.


And as I have previously stated in every fucking gun thread ever, I support reasonable restrictions including training.

I'm very interested in hearing what you consider reasonable restrictions and training.

I will use Massachusetts as an example.

To get a firearms licence in MA, one applies via the town/city police department. They have the authority to turn you down or place restrictions based on their (local) knowledge of you. This can be appealed at the state level.

You have to be a legal resident, 21 yo, and have taken an approved firearms safety class.

If the police department approves, they submit it to the state. The state does a criminal background check and has the FBI do one, too.

That seems reasonable, but I would like to see more training required prior to getting a license. The approved safety course is a good introduction, but it doesn't cover situational awareness, legal liabilities, or other real-world issues.

Massachusetts has regulations on storage and transport of firearms and ammunition, as well. They must be locked or in a locked container when not under your direct control.

Here's a decent summary. Note: Don't bother with the Wikipedia article as it is several years out of date.

However, there are some unreasonable restrictions, as well, such as continuing the state version of the federal 'assault weapons ban' that expired in 2004.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
14-04-2015, 04:52 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(14-04-2015 04:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  I will use Massachusetts as an example.

To get a firearms licence in MA, one applies via the town/city police department. They have the authority to turn you down or place restrictions based on their (local) knowledge of you. This can be appealed at the state level.

You have to be a legal resident, 21 yo, and have taken an approved firearms safety class.

If the police department approves, they submit it to the state. The state does a criminal background check and has the FBI do one, too.

That seems reasonable, but I would like to see more training required prior to getting a license. The approved safety course is a good introduction, but it doesn't cover situational awareness, legal liabilities, or other real-world issues.

Massachusetts has regulations on storage and transport of firearms and ammunition, as well. They must be locked or in a locked container when not under your direct control.

Here's a decent summary. Note: Don't bother with the Wikipedia article as it is several years out of date.

However, there are some unreasonable restrictions, as well, such as continuing the state version of the federal 'assault weapons ban' that expired in 2004.

That all sounds eminently sensible and reasonable.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 11:49 AM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(14-04-2015 04:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-04-2015 10:18 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  I'm very interested in hearing what you consider reasonable restrictions and training.

I will use Massachusetts as an example.

To get a firearms licence in MA, one applies via the town/city police department. They have the authority to turn you down or place restrictions based on their (local) knowledge of you. This can be appealed at the state level.

You have to be a legal resident, 21 yo, and have taken an approved firearms safety class.

If the police department approves, they submit it to the state. The state does a criminal background check and has the FBI do one, too.

That seems reasonable, but I would like to see more training required prior to getting a license. The approved safety course is a good introduction, but it doesn't cover situational awareness, legal liabilities, or other real-world issues.

Massachusetts has regulations on storage and transport of firearms and ammunition, as well. They must be locked or in a locked container when not under your direct control.

Here's a decent summary. Note: Don't bother with the Wikipedia article as it is several years out of date.

However, there are some unreasonable restrictions, as well, such as continuing the state version of the federal 'assault weapons ban' that expired in 2004.

Thanks. I'm am totally on board with those restrictions and safe-guards.

In MA can a all this be bypassed at gun shows?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2015, 12:26 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(14-04-2015 01:18 AM)Adrianime Wrote:  
(13-04-2015 07:46 PM)Losty Wrote:  To be fair, if I had 10,000 guns, I would not be any more likely to commit a crime.
Yeah, I don't agree. No offense.

You don't have to agree. You hardly know me well enough to form any sort of opinion on whether or not having guns would make me dangerous. It's smarter and safer for you to assume that it would. You'd be wrong though. I don't like guns. If I had 10,000 guns I would not be any more likely to commit a crime than I am now, regardless of whether you agree. I commit crimes. I violate the speed limit, I speed up at yellow sometimes. If I had a gun it would be locked up and if I had ammo that would also be locked up, separately. Perhaps if there was a loaded gun on my person at all times I might be someone more likely to commit a crime of passion or something. I still doubt it.

Swing with me a while, we can listen to the birds call, we can keep each other warm.
Swing with me forever, we can count up every flower, we can weather every storm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Losty's post
14-04-2015, 12:27 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(14-04-2015 11:49 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(14-04-2015 04:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  I will use Massachusetts as an example.

To get a firearms licence in MA, one applies via the town/city police department. They have the authority to turn you down or place restrictions based on their (local) knowledge of you. This can be appealed at the state level.

You have to be a legal resident, 21 yo, and have taken an approved firearms safety class.

If the police department approves, they submit it to the state. The state does a criminal background check and has the FBI do one, too.

That seems reasonable, but I would like to see more training required prior to getting a license. The approved safety course is a good introduction, but it doesn't cover situational awareness, legal liabilities, or other real-world issues.

Massachusetts has regulations on storage and transport of firearms and ammunition, as well. They must be locked or in a locked container when not under your direct control.

Here's a decent summary. Note: Don't bother with the Wikipedia article as it is several years out of date.

However, there are some unreasonable restrictions, as well, such as continuing the state version of the federal 'assault weapons ban' that expired in 2004.

Thanks. I'm am totally on board with those restrictions and safe-guards.

In MA can a all this be bypassed at gun shows?

No.


Editorial note: The so-called "gun show loophole" does not exist.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: