Colorado, gun control and the 2nd Amendment

[bandicoot76]

Quite right. And I refuse to sacrifice my freedom not to be shot at. There is no legitimate reason to own a gun in the city. None. If you want to belong to a gun club, fine. Keep your weapons in that club. At all times. The ONLY purpose of a weapon in the city is to commit harm to some one or some thing. Pretending that you have a "right" to own and use things which are dangerous to others and 100% useless for any worthwhile task is madness.

what makes you think someone from a sporting club would shoot at you???? that is illogical! do you think that as soon as they leave the club they suddenly become homicidal maniacs or something? so you would prefer guns all locked up in a communal gunsafe on the range rather than a personal gunsafe at the persons home?
sounds like the perfect 'soft target' for criminals to raid to get a whole lot of weapons from one place to me! again the 'anti' people assume firearm owners are all homicidal redneck loonies who play shoot em ups without regard to other ppl...

FIREARM SAFETY is first and foremost in the mind of sporting shooters... it is drummed into us from a young age, constantly in the forefront of your thoughts no matter whether on the range, in the field or even while cleaning your gun (prior to locking it away)!!!

the ppl most likely to shoot at you are criminals and have illegal, unregistered weapons purchased from the black market that all the legislation and regulations under the sun will HAVE NO EFFECT ON AT ALL! the crims in our community are ALREADY armed to the teeth and can get whatever they want, yes even rocket launchers stolen from the army, unfortunately that is a fact... get used to it but dont blame the carnage on law abiding shooters OR their firearms... neither are to blame!

constantly blaming sporting shooters (and their firearms) for urban guncrime is a total croc! i refer you again to my previous post linking the research of professor lott of the university of chicago regarding the crime statistics of 'concealed carry' states of america to those who dont.

making emotive statements without actually doing any research on the topic seems foolhardy to me,

i stand by this statement regarding crimes involving guns "I wasnt there, neither was my gun!" i feel sad for the victims of gun crimes and extreme anger at the perpetrators of them, but i feel no personal guilt and reject any call from the "anti" crowd that i am somehow responsible, i am not, neither are the other 99.9% of law abiding firearm owners out there... and there are a million+ of us.

 

[McLovin]

this one quote from you shows how ignorant you are on the issue of firearms, as is nearly always the case with people who form the 'anti' agenda...

there is NO SUCH THING AS A SEMI AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUN!!! in fact even the term 'semi automatic' is not an accurate description of a style of firearm. your "friend from texas" either possess's a self loading firearm (one depression of the trigger causes the firing of one round of ammunition), or a machine gun (one depression causes the firearm to repeadedly discharge until the trigger is released).

Brilliant!

I've just learnt something about guns. All seems the same really but maybe I just don't understand. Which I have no doubt you'll let me know about.

Sorry if I haven't paid attention to the details, sport. I saw the gun, it looked like a machine gun (which I assumed was a semi-auto), I called it as a I saw it. The point remains.

pretty simple really but i guess your "revelation" caused other people ignorant of firearms to go 'tsk tsk isnt that terrible, what nutcase would need or want a semi-atomatic machinegun'....

Yeah, I did. I thought, do I want to live in a country where that sort of weapon is available to the general piblic? The answer was no.

again your ignorance and insulting stereo-typing bullsh*t taint the contributions you make on this thread,

Wow. Well done on taking things out of context. How about you quote my entire statement?

Parsing does you no favours. And is probably beneath you.

 

[McLovin]

Brilliant!

I've just learnt something about guns. All seems the same really but maybe I just don't understand. Which I have no doubt you'll let me know about.

Sorry if I haven't paid attention to the details, sport. I saw the gun, it looked like a machine gun (which I assumed was a semi-auto), I called it as a I saw it. The point remains.

I checked with him. It's an Uzi. Just what every concerned citizen needs. An armed society is a polite society, afterall.

 

[bandicoot76]

Brilliant!

I've just learnt something about guns. All seems the same really but maybe I just don't understand. Which I have no doubt you'll let me know about.

Sorry if I haven't paid attention to the details, sport. I saw the gun, it looked like a machine gun (which I assumed was a semi-auto), I called it as a I saw it. The point remains.

i wasnt challenging your point, only correcting a technicality and getting annoyed at what i (wrongly as it turns out) saw as a deliberate distortion of the facts for a 'scare value' effect... it is a tactic widely used by the 'anti' movement but i see now that in your case i was mistaken so i duly apolagise.




Yeah, I did. I thought, do I want to live in a country where that sort of weapon is available to the general piblic? The answer was no.

i totally agree with you on this point and i (along with a vast majority of sporting shooters) see no need for these type of military firearms to be available to the public...




Wow. Well done on taking things out of context. How about you quote my entire statement?

Parsing does you no favours. And is probably beneath you.

anytime i hear firearm owners lumped under the derogatory "redneck" or looney etc etc banner no matter the context i find it insulting and adds no intelligent input to the debate... no retraction nor apolagy for that one!

all in all i find your input to the discussion pretty balanced mate... just hold back with the redneck type insults and i have no dramas at all!

 

[McLovin]

anytime i hear firearm owners lumped under the derogatory "redneck" or looney etc etc banner no matter the context i find it insulting and adds no intelligent input to the debate... no retraction nor apolagy for that one!

all in all i find your input to the discussion pretty balanced mate... just hold back with the redneck type insults and i have no dramas at all!

Fair enough, sorry if I came across as a bit rude. You seem to be pretty up to speed with it. I think the rest of the sentence was important because, to many people outside the US, the stereotypical gun owner is of a white Southern male, in a pickup truck, with a Confederate flag somewhere on it, carrying a gun. Or an inner city black kid in a gang. It runs the full gammit.

It wasn't meant to be an insult. You don't think I'd hang around with redneck Texans do you!:

i totally agree with you on this point and i (along with a vast majority of sporting shooters) see no need for these type of military firearms to be available to the public...

This goes back to my original point then. The Second Amendment is out of date.

If you put it in historical context, it is actually quite a reactionary document. Much of the US Bill of Rights is based on the older English Bill of Rights (a lot of it is almost lifted straight from the English BoR). The right to bear arms is included in the English BoR but that right rests with the Parliament to legislate, whereas the US document gives that right to the people. If you think back to that period in history (those messy little tea parties in Boston etc), you can see why they sought to place those rights directly in the hands of the people rather than the Congress, given they had had such a poor experience with government, to that point.

The thing with guns is that it's a Pandora's Box. Once you let everyone have them you can't get rid of them. The only example of a modern, wealthy, politcially stable nation that allows liberal access to firearms has a significantly higher number of gun related murders. Maybe there are other reasons that partially explain it but I really can't see how it has no effect.

 

[bandicoot76]

i find it rather frustrating trying to have a balanced discussion/debate while being bombarded with insulting derogatory insults and emotive rhetoric rather than facts on this thread so this will be my last effort at putting my ideas across.

ok... lets play make believe and say the 'anti' folks on this thread get their way and for "safety's sake" get a TOTAL ban on all privately owned firearms, all registered firearms are confiscated and destroyed...

hell lets take it one step further and say that due to their knowedge of firearms posing a potentioal threat to the community that all previously liscened firearm owners be rounded up and sent to internment facilities to be detained and individually analized to determine their mental stability and potential risk to the community..

there are three things that i can guarentee will occur in this scenario:

1) the people that you fear may cause you harm in the community will still be there, their intent to cause you harm will remain intact, their potential to enact that harm may (or may not) be curbed by firearm access but they sure as hell will find a way to make it happen (think sarin gas in tokyo subway, or fuel arson attack on the theatre in sth america, bombs from fuel/fertilizer in oklahoma... mass csualties no guns..)

2)the criminal element in society will not only remain armed but will now be ever more adventurous as they can now prey on an unarmed community.... the crime rate will increase rapidly... count on it!

3) the precedent is set for government to sieze private property without recompense... it would bankrupt the govt to pay correct value for all the private guns in circulation. heres a quick calculation off the top of my head...

most firearm owners average 3 guns each, most firearms cost around $1000.00, the quoted figure of firearm owners in Aus is 764,518 (that is a VERY conservative number... i have seen figures showing 1million plus)

so... that is 3 x $1000 x 764,518 = $2,293,554,000 to remove ONLY the legally held firearms, what benefit for that cost?

but thats not even the main point i was making, the PRECEDANT of seizing and confiscating private property with no recompense for "the common good" is the real worry here, whats next after guns? bows & arrows? big dogs? fast cars? high carb/fat/sugar/salt food? pointy sticks? once you pass that point its a VERY slippery slope!

but in the meantime i'll be taking my rifle out to shoot a couple of bunnies for the pot whenever i damn well please and all you 'anti's' can p*ss well away off!

 

[MrBurns]

there are three things that i can guarentee will occur in this scenario:

1) the people that you fear may cause you harm in the community will still be there, their intent to cause you harm will remain intact, their potential to enact that harm may (or may not) be curbed by firearm access but they sure as hell will find a way to make it happen (think sarin gas in tokyo subway, or fuel arson attack on the theatre in sth america, bombs from fuel/fertilizer in oklahoma... mass csualties no guns..)

Much easier to mass kill with a gun than anything else, guns would be easily to hand and impulse killings would soar.

2)the criminal element in society will not only remain armed but will now be ever more adventurous as they can now prey on an unarmed community.... the crime rate will increase rapidly... count on it!

Thats ridiculous, you seriously think people will have gun fights ? Crims have guns and always will and you want the general community with no firearms experience to have firefights ? You're crazy.

3) the precedent is set for government to sieze private property without recompense... it would bankrupt the govt to pay correct value for all the private guns in circulation. heres a quick calculation off the top of my head...

most firearm owners average 3 guns each, most firearms cost around $1000.00, the quoted figure of firearm owners in Aus is 764,518 (that is a VERY conservative number... i have seen figures showing 1million plus)

so... that is 3 x $1000 x 764,518 = $2,293,554,000 to remove ONLY the legally held firearms, what benefit for that cost?

You must be talking USA, to change things there would take years but they should start as it's only going to get worse.

but thats not even the main point i was making, the PRECEDANT of seizing and confiscating private property with no recompense for "the common good" is the real worry here, whats next after guns? bows & arrows? big dogs? fast cars? high carb/fat/sugar/salt food? pointy sticks? once you pass that point its a VERY slippery slope!

Absolute drivel.

but in the meantime i'll be taking my rifle out to shoot a couple of bunnies for the pot whenever i damn well please and all you 'anti's' can p*ss well away off!

How brave of you. You just like to kill, it's nothing to do with food.

 

[Ageo]

How brave of you. You just like to kill, it's nothing to do with food.

MrBurns that comment there just sums it up..... you dont like guns and because "you" dont like them they should be banned.

You should run for politics

 

[white_goodman]

MrBurns that comment there just sums it up..... you dont like guns and because "you" dont like them they should be banned.

You should run for politics

finally someone else gets it, i have no interest in guns yet you dont see me getting all authoritarian

 

[Julia]

i find it rather frustrating trying to have a balanced discussion/debate while being bombarded with insulting derogatory insults and emotive rhetoric rather than facts on this thread so this will be my last effort at putting my ideas across.

ok... lets play make believe and say the 'anti' folks on this thread get their way and for "safety's sake" get a TOTAL ban on all privately owned firearms, all registered firearms are confiscated and destroyed...

hell lets take it one step further and say that due to their knowedge of firearms posing a potentioal threat to the community that all previously liscened firearm owners be rounded up and sent to internment facilities to be detained and individually analized to determine their mental stability and potential risk to the community..

That's just being silly and seems to me a disappointing response to McLovin's post which came across to me as peace-making and reasonable.
You criticise others for 'emotive rhetoric' and then you propose a scenario as above. Hardly a way to win people to your point of view.

 

[McLovin]

That's just being silly and seems to me a disappointing response to McLovin's post which came across to me as peace-making and reasonable.
You criticise others for 'emotive rhetoric' and then you propose a scenario as above. Hardly a way to win people to your point of view.

I don't think bandicoot's post was directed at me. I'd say he was already typing it out when I posted mine, judging by the time stamps.

 

[Julia]

Yes, thanks McLovin. Unfortunate timing on my part and a drawing of a wrong conclusion.
Sorry, bandicoot.

 

[Knobby22]

Playing child shot with air rifle in yard
Posted 1 hour 16 minutes ago

Map: Traralgon 3844
A nine-year-old girl has been shot while playing with her brother in their backyard at Traralgon, in Victoria's south-east.

The girl was shot in the abdomen with what is believed to be an air rifle around 5:30pm yesterday.

She was treated for minor injuries.

The girl told police she and her younger sister had been threatened by a man while playing in the street earlier in the day.

Police have expressed outrage at what they say was the deliberate targeting of a child.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-05/child-shot-with-air-rifle-while-playing/4243514

 

[MrBurns]

MrBurns that comment there just sums it up..... you dont like guns and because "you" dont like them they should be banned.

You should run for politics

Rubbish..... I love guns, I love anything metal and mechanical, cars, trains, guns, all that stuff, I just don't like the twisted mentality that enjoys blowing a gentle creature apart with a weapon...........for enjoyment :screwy:

 

[Julia]

I just don't like the twisted mentality that enjoys blowing a gentle creature apart with a weapon...........for enjoyment :screwy:

I have to agree with you on this, and just hope most of the animals that people kill for fun exist in extraordinary numbers so the killing for fun can be at least partially justified.

 

[Ageo]

I just don't like the twisted mentality that enjoys blowing a gentle creature apart with a weapon...........for enjoyment :screwy:

again another reason why this thread has no substance, I agree there are sick people in this world that do stupid things (but that's with everything) but you directing that statement to a majority of people who treat animals with respect, hunt with high ethical standards, hunt for a purpose (feral animal control or meat consumption) and enjoy the benefits of the outdoors, not to mention the environmental and economic benefits which are enormous.

I take my family out shooting rabbits/pigs other species For both the pot and vermin control and because we enjoy it, show the kids where meat actually comes from, get out in the fresh air and show them how a simple life can be your saying I'm twisted mentally?

MrBurns like I said you should run for politics

 

[prawn_86]

I'm for both for gun control and hunting. If you have a legitimate reason (ie hunting) to own a rifle then imo that is fine, i just dont see why the average person in the city needs to own one.

I think everyone should either hunt or kill an animal they eat at least once in their life, if you cant kill an animal then you probably shouldn't eat meat. I grew up in a rural area and shooting kangaroos or slaughtering your own sheep, chickens etc. It makes you appreciate where food comes from and learn respect for nature and animals.

The vast majority of hunters try for a clean kill, which of course isn't always posisble, but killing something you eat is still something most people wont understand until they have done it themselves.

 

[MrBurns]

again another reason why this thread has no substance, I agree there are sick people in this world that do stupid things (but that's with everything) but you directing that statement to a majority of people who treat animals with respect, hunt with high ethical standards, hunt for a purpose (feral animal control or meat consumption) and enjoy the benefits of the outdoors, not to mention the environmental and economic benefits which are enormous.

I take my family out shooting rabbits/pigs other species For both the pot and vermin control and because we enjoy it, show the kids where meat actually comes from, get out in the fresh air and show them how a simple life can be your saying I'm twisted mentally?

MrBurns like I said you should run for politics

You might see the good in a family day out killing small animals but I'm afraid I don't.

Killing for food if you need to is fine, but a family day out ? I bet you all have a good ole' belly laugh as bunny gets blown apart, reminds me of the Itchy and Scratchy cartoons in the Simpsons.

Not to mention the danger to others who might be enjoying the outdoors without needing to blow animals apart.

and enjoy the benefits of the outdoors, not to mention the environmental and economic benefits which are enormous.

You have to be joking right ?


Added - I think this wil just go round in circles, so may as well end this debate here. I just cant understand how people hunt for fun, my neighbour does but I just dont get it.

 

[Julia]

I think everyone should either hunt or kill an animal they eat at least once in their life, if you cant kill an animal then you probably shouldn't eat meat.

What extraordinary logic.

I grew up in a rural area and shooting kangaroos or slaughtering your own sheep, chickens etc. It makes you appreciate where food comes from and learn respect for nature and animals.

I think most of us understand that the leg of lamb comes from a young sheep being killed for food. Hardly need to butcher it ourselves to get that!
And how you can suggest killing animals demonstrates respect for them is absolutely beyond me.

Probably a discussion that is best not pursued. It's very emotive and will only cause tempers to flare more than they have already on this thread.

 

[prawn_86]

What extraordinary logic.

I dont see how it is any different to picking fruit or growing vegetables, both of which are good education. Admittedly it is not as easy to kill an animal (both emotionally and logistically), hence why i think everyone should do it at least once, not all the time.

Less than 200 years ago pretty much everyone had to do this at some stage in their life. Or if they didnt kill animals for food, they at least saw it being done (or gutted, cleaned it etc) and could appreciate where food comes from and what is involved.

You would be surprised how many people have never seen an animal being killed and dont actually think about where their food comes from. If more people did this then perhaps there would be more thought around sustainable farming, food wastage etc.

It actually warrants it's own thread so i have started another one now so we can keep this thread about gun control