Do you feel the need to be unarmed and defensless while camping?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JWP58

Guest
And again, as someone who admits they hate guns - I think that is awesome and would never hope to see that scenario change. It's the guns in the wrong hands I hope someday will be in check.
Its not going to "get ugly". You can say that you just want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals all you want, I don't buy it. You reference the private party deal that occurred in the san Bernardino, even though you know that nothing is going to stop a criminal from breaking a law and acquiring a gun illegally. For heavens sake THEY MADE BOMBS. MANUFACTURING BOMBS IS ILLEGAL. Are you wanting a new law to make it "more" illegal? Passing a law is not going to do a damn thing, and you know it. Means to an end.

The mindset of the gun control folks is astounding. Make more laws, that will only be broken by the criminals that caused the extra foolish laws to be implemented.

BTW Im still pulling for the governed automobiles to gain some speed. I mean really, why do you need to drive 75mph...or even 50mph???? Its so dangerous!!! So risky!!! I think the latest Bleeding Heart Journal study showed driving at a high rate of speed increased the chance of a high speed crash by a billion percent, and increase your carbon footprint by a gajillion percent.....science!
 
Last edited:

Dalko43

Explorer
Now, it's hard for me to find new ways of saying it, but it is very possible for there to be a system in place that ensures that guns are sold to qualified buyers, as we do now, but with more effectiveness. That wouldn't preclude people like you from buying guns, and believe me when I say this, that is my strongest desire. To not have guns banned - ever. Nothing draconian or "disgusting" about my individual desires on the subject.

And again, a reduction in the number of guns in circulation, and doubled efforts to make sure they are in the right hands, can only be a good thing. The "more guns, less regulations," concept is not a sustainable, at least not in my opinion, or anything that can be substantiated statistically in our's or any other country.
Your argument is a truism...it's like saying: "I really think the world would be better if we found a cure for cancer." Of course everyone wants less gun violence and murders. The real question that I have yet to see you or compatriots answer is: What are the realistic measures needed for accomplishing that goal?

I can think of a few revisions/updates that could be added to background checks. Beyond that, I'm really not understanding how we can regulate firearms with "more effectiveness." What is your plan for ridding black market of all illegal firearms? What are the specifics of what you want to see happen? I'm genuinely interested in hearing what you have to say on this.
 

Lynnrb

Observer
Your argument is a truism...it's like saying: "I really think the world would be better if we found a cure for cancer." Of course everyone wants less gun violence and murders. The real question that I have yet to see you or compatriots answer is: What are the realistic measures needed for accomplishing that goal?

I can think of a few revisions/updates that could be added to background checks. Beyond that, I'm really not understanding how we can regulate firearms with "more effectiveness." What is your plan for ridding black market of all illegal firearms? What are the specifics of what you want to see happen? I'm genuinely interested in hearing what you have to say on this.
Gun regulations like the rest of the world has. Australia and Canada are particularly good examples.
 

Duke84

New member
When it was decided we had a DUI problem the solutions to reduce DUI included establishing a standard (.08 BAC) for the agreed upon level for all the states (taken up by individual states, not a federal DUI law) and raised the drinking age to 21. Then we had aggressive DUI education for everyone and enforcement programs, with enhanced penalties to curb the unwanted behavior. We didn't make cars harder to drive, we didn't make it harder to drive cars drunk. We didn't try to outlaw cars or alcohol. DUI is still an issue but it seems to me to be less commonplace than it was then.

But with guns/violent crime people want to do just the opposite. They don't want to educate folks on safely handling firearms in schools like they do for driver's ed. They don't want to make prosecutors and judges enforce the plethora of gun laws on the books. They don't want to go after the real causes of violent crime, they want to go after the gun. Why is it that in curbing one type of undesired behavior we went after the behavior (DUI) but to reduce gun crime we go after an inanimate object (the gun) more than the behavior? Seems a little hypocritical to me.
 
S

Squatchout

Guest
I think a lot of folks need to step back and look at the big picture, Statistics show that gun laws rarely reduce crime. Yes in UK and OZ shootings declined but violent crimes went through the roof. Now they just beat old men to death at the bus stop with ball bats. If they work please explain Chicago and DC and NY and Baltimore to me.

The problem is not guns it's social-economic issues. Way too many folks in this country are unemployed or underemployed. It's getting worse every day. Gov numbers don't count people who have never worked a real job. They just count folks on unemployment. Current policies in this country are making it worse every day. We constantly hear that it's a global economy. BS. How are folks that live in an area where any home costs $200,000 and up supposed to compete on a level playing field with places where the people make less than $100 a month. Like the Unions say it's a race to the bottom. Hunger breeds crime plain and simple.

Cultural pressures that work to defeat any kind of education for a few generations. How do you combat that?

Everybody loves their high tech stuff. But that stuff is constantly replacing well paid people. When computers do all the work that's not rough labor how does an economy get supported.

Social pressures for faster, faster, more, more on kids every day. Parents that work too much to properly raise their kids. Broken homes. Tv sets raising your children. Fear to let your kids go outdoors. These are the things that cause mass shooting.

There is plenty more killing everyday that happens without guns. We just rarely hear about it. Why? The media and it's owners have their own agenda's.

Want to stop mass shootings. I have the answer for that. Stop talking about it. Don't ever print the shooter name ever. Ban the practice. Media blackout forever on every mass shooting and it will disappear. A few years ago here in MD they were trying to get some so called Saturday night special law passed. Every day the press was full of stories about kids taking guns to school. All of that miraculously stopped the day after the election. No it didn't but they no longer needed to scare folks into backing them. So the media stopped covering it.

Mass shooters are just like people who try to kill the president. 4 categories. 1) fame seekers: disturbed people that want to become immortal. Every body has heard of Jack the Ripper. 2) Suicide by proxy. Disturbed people who don't have the nads to do themselves in so they set up a situation in which someone else has to take them out. 3) other deranged people low numbers here. 4) New here. Terrorist attacks.

Stop making these people famous and the mass shootings will stop. But it will never happen. The powers that be have an agenda. To convince everybody that guns are bad so they can take them away. Why because you won't get into the box car willingly! That's how governments have historically dealt with the social economic issues they can't fix. Either kill off the lower classes or find some group to blame and kill them. Hitler and Stalin come to mind but their are hundreds of others in the last few hundred years. The info is out there if you look for it. Or you can just ask a survivor of the death camps in Germany.

Will media blackout stop every day robbery and domestic violence killings? NO! But neither will heavy handed gun control. Never has never will. The guns are out there. They always have been. Even if they weren't they are not hard to make in some fashion or another. Bad guys will always have guns. The bad guys the founding fathers were worried about have Armys.
 

Dalko43

Explorer
Gun regulations like the rest of the world has. Australia and Canada are particularly good examples.
Those involved outright bans on many weapons types, and severe restrictions on all other types....there will be very little support for that kind of regulatory environment.

As well, there is no concept of carrying for self-defense in those countries (with a few exceptions). Most of the weapons permits issued over there are for people who have a "valid" reason: hunting; sport shooting; historical collections.

Firearm ownership is not considered an inherent "right" in those countries; it's considered a privilege, and as such the government can restrict it or take it away as it pleases.
 
Last edited:

Dalko43

Explorer
When it was decided we had a DUI problem the solutions to reduce DUI included establishing a standard (.08 BAC) for the agreed upon level for all the states (taken up by individual states, not a federal DUI law) and raised the drinking age to 21. Then we had aggressive DUI education for everyone and enforcement programs, with enhanced penalties to curb the unwanted behavior. We didn't make cars harder to drive, we didn't make it harder to drive cars drunk. We didn't try to outlaw cars or alcohol. DUI is still an issue but it seems to me to be less commonplace than it was then.

But with guns/violent crime people want to do just the opposite. They don't want to educate folks on safely handling firearms in schools like they do for driver's ed. They don't want to make prosecutors and judges enforce the plethora of gun laws on the books. They don't want to go after the real causes of violent crime, they want to go after the gun. Why is it that in curbing one type of undesired behavior we went after the behavior (DUI) but to reduce gun crime we go after an inanimate object (the gun) more than the behavior? Seems a little hypocritical to me.
That's an extremely well thought-out point. I'd be interested in hearing Chris Noel's feedback on that, seeing as how he really loved the car analogy.
 
Last edited:

bob280zx

Observer
Gun regulations like the rest of the world has. Australia and Canada are particularly good examples.
I'm surprised it took this long for someone to trot this turkey out. I guess the conversation was overrun by cars.

It's the holy grail last refuge of those who can't actually mount a cogent argument and understand neither violence, guns, nor the relationship between the two.

With Knife Murders Spiking After Gun Ban, UK Urges "Save A Life - Surrender Your Knife"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-28/knife-murders-spiking-after-gun-ban-uk-urges-save-life-surrender-your-knife

Here we go - round and round. Exactly as predicted. If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be comical.

Canadian cities largely safe but rising gun violence ‘disturbing’

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadian-cities-largely-safe-but-rising-gun-violence-disturbing-1.1129887

No doubt all the fault of those heathen Americans to the south.

As for Australia, just google "hoons" and see what those fine fellows are up to.

So, is all this discussion about guns, violence, saving lives, or just plain old control?
 
Last edited:

Christophe Noel

Expedition Leader
I think a lot of folks need to step back and look at the big picture, Statistics show that gun laws rarely reduce crime. Yes in UK and OZ shootings declined but violent crimes went through the roof. Now they just beat old men to death at the bus stop with ball bats. If they work please explain Chicago and DC and NY and Baltimore to me. .
Unfortunately, those examples provide corrupted data as the strict gun regulations in those cities are easily circumvented by bringing in weapons from neighboring states. 66% of guns used for crimes in Chicago alone come from outside the city. It serves as an example for the ineffectiveness of those particular gun laws, not that the laws themselves are bad. Which they very well may be. But the data is corrupt.

Gentlemen, thank you for the discussion. I can sense that my involvement is causing JWP58 some consternation, which was not my intent. I only participate in these discussions to show that there are plenty of us who want to see everyone retain their right to carry, but also hope that someday we can effectively address our unusually high rates of gun violence. And again, that has to involve way more than what we're talking about here.

Thank you, fellas.
 
Last edited:

Dalko43

Explorer
Unfortunately, those examples provide corrupted data as the strict gun regulations in those cities are easily circumvented by bringing in weapons from neighboring states. 66% of guns used for crimes in Chicago alone come from outside the city. It serves as an example for the ineffectiveness of those particular gun laws, not that the laws themselves are bad. Which they very well may be. But the data is corrupt.
So you're saying that if we applied these Chicago-style of laws across the entire US, they would be more effective at curbing gun crimes?
 

Dalko43

Explorer
Not at all. Just that as a data set, it is corrupt. It's like taking a census and counting all the tourists.
"Corrupt" may be the wrong word. The data from which these statistics were derived is not inaccurate or wrong; the numbers are what the numbers are and there are many factors (internal and external) which affect them. I think all statistical studies, regardless of the topic, need a certain context.

By this line of logic, should we also consider our nation's drug crime stats "corrupt" due to our proximity to several narco states like Mexico?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top