Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Vigilante]

 

[2aguy]

Those photos are great.......they say so much with so few words.....

 

[Wildman]

liberfools are the ruination of this country, we need a leader who recognizes this FACT!!! ::up

 

[Slade3200]

After reflecting on arguments from both sides I think the issues are apparent.

For the "Anti-gunners": These are people who simply want to feel safe and they do not own guns or use them for protection or sport. When the see gun violence it just puts a sour taste in there mouth and they want to take action. It's not rocket science why they do not go to bat to protect the rights of gun makers, dealers, or owners. Less guns equal less opportunity for tragity. Plain and simple. What they can do better is accept the fact that guns are out there and in their opposition are many americans who are responsible gun owners. They can do better at focusing on the real problems at hand and less on engaging with law abiding citizens.

For the "Gunners": These are people who own guns and feel that they are an important part of their lives by means of safety, sport, hobby, or hunting. It is their right and responsibility and many of the laws and actions put forth do make it more difficult and expensive for them to purchase, sell and use their weapons.
At the same time, you all gotta calm down and take an objective view on this situation. Your opposition isn't trying to attack you or your rights, they are trying to make their community a safer place and when you insult their reason for feeling fear it doesn't do you any favors. Many of you make good arguments, however, they get washed out by a wave of ridiculous arguments and partisan insults so nobody on the other side can take you seriously. I agree BG checks are not going to do much to stop gun violence, however many of you don't deny that they should be in place, so stop fighting so hard to argue against efforts to make that system work better. You say crime inforcement and mental health are major causes of problems, so support and acknowledge the funding and efforts made to those areas (there has been a bunch). But mostly, STOP THE DENIAL. Gun Culture IS a factor. Gun Ownership IS an earned Right that only responsible individuals should have. Guns should be made safer. Measures to help fight crime, and trace the source of illegal gun distribution should be taken.
The "slippery slope" and "defense against a government take over" arguments are far fetched and paranoid, they don't so you any service as they only discredit you to the opposition.

I see this thirst for personal attacks and insults in our political system and all it does is add to the divide. Perhaps everybody watching too much reality tv... Turn of the Kardashians!!! The fact is, the tone of the conversation is damaging to the process and makes it harder for both sides to achieve anything. At some point if people really want change, they will need to acknowledge the intent and good ideas of their opposition. It is the only path to progress.

 

[westwall]

After reflecting on arguments from both sides I think the issues are apparent.

For the "Anti-gunners": These are people who simply want to feel safe and they do not own guns or use them for protection or sport. When the see gun violence it just puts a sour taste in there mouth and they want to take action. It's not rocket science why they do not go to bat to protect the rights of gun makers, dealers, or owners. Less guns equal less opportunity for tragity. Plain and simple. What they can do better is accept the fact that guns are out there and in their opposition are many americans who are responsible gun owners. They can do better at focusing on the real problems at hand and less on engaging with law abiding citizens.

For the "Gunners": These are people who own guns and feel that they are an important part of their lives by means of safety, sport, hobby, or hunting. It is their right and responsibility and many of the laws and actions put forth do make it more difficult and expensive for them to purchase, sell and use their weapons.
At the same time, you all gotta calm down and take an objective view on this situation. Your opposition isn't trying to attack you or your rights, they are trying to make their community a safer place and when you insult their reason for feeling fear it doesn't do you any favors. Many of you make good arguments, however, they get washed out by a wave of ridiculous arguments and partisan insults so nobody on the other side can take you seriously. I agree BG checks are not going to do much to stop gun violence, however many of you don't deny that they should be in place, so stop fighting so hard to argue against efforts to make that system work better. You say crime inforcement and mental health are major causes of problems, so support and acknowledge the funding and efforts made to those areas (there has been a bunch). But mostly, STOP THE DENIAL. Gun Culture IS a factor. Gun Ownership IS an earned Right that only responsible individuals should have. Guns should be made safer. Measures to help fight crime, and trace the source of illegal gun distribution should be taken.
The "slippery slope" and "defense against a government take over" arguments are far fetched and paranoid, they don't so you any service as they only discredit you to the opposition.

I see this thirst for personal attacks and insults in our political system and all it does is add to the divide. Perhaps everybody watching too much reality tv... Turn of the Kardashians!!! The fact is, the tone of the conversation is damaging to the process and makes it harder for both sides to achieve anything. At some point if people really want change, they will need to acknowledge the intent and good ideas of their opposition. It is the only path to progress.

Why is it always the gun people who have to "calm down"? It is YOU who are demanding that WE give up our property and our Rights. And you do this by being emotional and lying about the causes of crime.

I suggest it is YOU who needs to calm down.

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[Slade3200]

Why is it always the gun people who have to "calm down"? It is YOU who are demanding that WE give up our property and our Rights. And you do this by being emotional and lying about the causes of crime.

I suggest it is YOU who needs to calm down.

You make my case... Yes both sides need to calm down. You just aren't going to win the moral argument if it is one sides desire to feel safe vs your desire to keep your ability to kill. I suggest you learn some self realization and stop pointing the finger

 

[2aguy]

Why is it always the gun people who have to "calm down"? It is YOU who are demanding that WE give up our property and our Rights. And you do this by being emotional and lying about the causes of crime.

I suggest it is YOU who needs to calm down.

You make my case... Yes both sides need to calm down. You just aren't going to win the moral argument if it is one sides desire to feel safe vs your desire to keep your ability to kill. I suggest you learn some self realization and stop pointing the finger

Yeah…nice rhetoric. It isn't a desire to kill, it is a desire to have the best tool to keep our families safe…which the history of humans has shown to be firearms. Wether it is street criminals or mass murdering governments the only thing that makes a real difference when it is the weak vs. the strong the few outnumbered by the many is a firearm in the hands of the defender.

The fact…yes, the fact, that every time guns are registered they are eventually confiscated and in the worst case situations it has led to mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing is actual history….not feelings or thoughts…actual history. Actual research shows that the odds of actually surviving a violent attack by a criminal is with a gun….actual research shows that the best way for a woman to defend herself from a stronger, more aggressive male is a gun.

So those people who want to disarm normal, law abiding people with laws that will not stop one criminal from getting a gun….which you yourself have agreed with, makes no sense at all to a person with even minimal intelligence. Americans use guns to stop violent criminal attack between 500,000 and 3,000,000 million times a year…and according to bill clinton it is 1,500,000 times a year….vs. career violent criminals who murdered 8,124 people in 2014, the majority of which were other violent career criminals…

So the actual numbers from 40 years of research don't back up your views….so again, an individual with the bare minimum of intelligence can see that giving up the best tool for self defense against violent criminals and corrupt, murderous governments, for no reason, since you yourself admit those laws will not stop criminals from getting guns….

Is just stupid…………..the people with mental issues are the ones who insist that because 2-3 AR-15s are used to commit crimes, maybe, each year……that the owners of the other 3,750,000 AR-15s, who don't use them to commit crime must surrender them. That is insane…..not our position.

So……no…not one more gun, bullet, magazine or piece of equipment will be surrendered to those who are mentally ill…..

 

[Slade3200]

Why is it always the gun people who have to "calm down"? It is YOU who are demanding that WE give up our property and our Rights. And you do this by being emotional and lying about the causes of crime.

I suggest it is YOU who needs to calm down.

You make my case... Yes both sides need to calm down. You just aren't going to win the moral argument if it is one sides desire to feel safe vs your desire to keep your ability to kill. I suggest you learn some self realization and stop pointing the finger

Yeah…nice rhetoric. It isn't a desire to kill, it is a desire to have the best tool to keep our families safe…which the history of humans has shown to be firearms. Wether it is street criminals or mass murdering governments the only thing that makes a real difference when it is the weak vs. the strong the few outnumbered by the many is a firearm in the hands of the defender.

The fact…yes, the fact, that every time guns are registered they are eventually confiscated and in the worst case situations it has led to mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing is actual history….not feelings or thoughts…actual history. Actual research shows that the odds of actually surviving a violent attack by a criminal is with a gun….actual research shows that the best way for a woman to defend herself from a stronger, more aggressive male is a gun.

So those people who want to disarm normal, law abiding people with laws that will not stop one criminal from getting a gun….which you yourself have agreed with, makes no sense at all to a person with even minimal intelligence. Americans use guns to stop violent criminal attack between 500,000 and 3,000,000 million times a year…and according to bill clinton it is 1,500,000 times a year….vs. career violent criminals who murdered 8,124 people in 2014, the majority of which were other violent career criminals…

So the actual numbers from 40 years of research don't back up your views….so again, an individual with the bare minimum of intelligence can see that giving up the best tool for self defense against violent criminals and corrupt, murderous governments, for no reason, since you yourself admit those laws will not stop criminals from getting guns….

Is just stupid…………..the people with mental issues are the ones who insist that because 2-3 AR-15s are used to commit crimes, maybe, each year……that the owners of the other 3,750,000 AR-15s, who don't use them to commit crime must surrender them. That is insane…..not our position.

So……no…not one more gun, bullet, magazine or piece of equipment will be surrendered to those who are mentally ill…..

Please don't twist my words, I did not accuse gun owners of having a desire to kill. I pointed out that in a moral debate your side is fighting to keep a tool whose purpose is to kill and destroy things... The opposing side fears guns and desires a safe environment. More guns, in their opinion, does not make them feel safe. This is POV is a fact and a difference of opinion that you should understand. I respect your points, and am simply suggesting that you and other gun advocates take on a more inclusive/less aggressive approach to the conversation. The best way to progress is to understand your opponent. I see too much of both sides spiraling down a path of talking points that rally their base and repel the opposition. I also believe that the "Moral" argument is on the anti-gun side. It is a fact that guns are killing machines thus the gun rights advocates have more of a responsibility to give reassurance and work on measures to improve safety and responsibility to make the non-gun owners feel more at ease. Calling people stupid or oppressive for wanting to feel safe isn't the right approach.

Like i've mentioned, I am a gun owner and I am not interested in jumping through a bunch of hoops if I want to sell or buy guns. I also am very empathetic to those who fear guns and those who have been victims of gun violence. I hope when you continue conversations about this subject you stick to the valid effective points and can put ego aside to acknowledge the fears, concerns and valid points of your opposition. You have a lot working for you with historical data about effectiveness of gun control measures, use that in a constructive way. There are many countries that have seen massive failures with gun control but some have seen success so we should be objective in our review of the effective and ineffective measures. An absolutist POV will never work.

You are obviously passionate and convinced in the validity of all your arguments, I'm just telling you that the other side feels the same way and there IS middle ground, but you stick to the stronger talking points. As I mentioned before, bring up the slippery slope, genocide, or safety in arming the masses and you will lose the attention of your opposition and thus remain at a stand still.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why is it always the gun people who have to "calm down"? It is YOU who are demanding that WE give up our property and our Rights. And you do this by being emotional and lying about the causes of crime.

I suggest it is YOU who needs to calm down.

You make my case... Yes both sides need to calm down. You just aren't going to win the moral argument if it is one sides desire to feel safe vs your desire to keep your ability to kill. I suggest you learn some self realization and stop pointing the finger

"Keep your ability to kill" is self realization on your part?

 

[Slade3200]

"Keep your ability to kill" is self realization on your part?

Huh?

 

[westwall]

Why is it always the gun people who have to "calm down"? It is YOU who are demanding that WE give up our property and our Rights. And you do this by being emotional and lying about the causes of crime.

I suggest it is YOU who needs to calm down.

You make my case... Yes both sides need to calm down. You just aren't going to win the moral argument if it is one sides desire to feel safe vs your desire to keep your ability to kill. I suggest you learn some self realization and stop pointing the finger

No, YOU make my point. You try and bring morality into a discussion that has nothing to do with morals. That is a religious position. We are talking about Rights and laws that transcend religion. Funny how you try and deflect by claiming I am the one pointing the finger when I was showing you to be the hypocrite. I was bending your very own finger and making you point it back at YOU.

 

[westwall]

Why is it always the gun people who have to "calm down"? It is YOU who are demanding that WE give up our property and our Rights. And you do this by being emotional and lying about the causes of crime.

I suggest it is YOU who needs to calm down.

You make my case... Yes both sides need to calm down. You just aren't going to win the moral argument if it is one sides desire to feel safe vs your desire to keep your ability to kill. I suggest you learn some self realization and stop pointing the finger

Yeah…nice rhetoric. It isn't a desire to kill, it is a desire to have the best tool to keep our families safe…which the history of humans has shown to be firearms. Wether it is street criminals or mass murdering governments the only thing that makes a real difference when it is the weak vs. the strong the few outnumbered by the many is a firearm in the hands of the defender.

The fact…yes, the fact, that every time guns are registered they are eventually confiscated and in the worst case situations it has led to mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing is actual history….not feelings or thoughts…actual history. Actual research shows that the odds of actually surviving a violent attack by a criminal is with a gun….actual research shows that the best way for a woman to defend herself from a stronger, more aggressive male is a gun.

So those people who want to disarm normal, law abiding people with laws that will not stop one criminal from getting a gun….which you yourself have agreed with, makes no sense at all to a person with even minimal intelligence. Americans use guns to stop violent criminal attack between 500,000 and 3,000,000 million times a year…and according to bill clinton it is 1,500,000 times a year….vs. career violent criminals who murdered 8,124 people in 2014, the majority of which were other violent career criminals…

So the actual numbers from 40 years of research don't back up your views….so again, an individual with the bare minimum of intelligence can see that giving up the best tool for self defense against violent criminals and corrupt, murderous governments, for no reason, since you yourself admit those laws will not stop criminals from getting guns….

Is just stupid…………..the people with mental issues are the ones who insist that because 2-3 AR-15s are used to commit crimes, maybe, each year……that the owners of the other 3,750,000 AR-15s, who don't use them to commit crime must surrender them. That is insane…..not our position.

So……no…not one more gun, bullet, magazine or piece of equipment will be surrendered to those who are mentally ill…..

Please don't twist my words, I did not accuse gun owners of having a desire to kill. I pointed out that in a moral debate your side is fighting to keep a tool whose purpose is to kill and destroy things... The opposing side fears guns and desires a safe environment. More guns, in their opinion, does not make them feel safe. This is POV is a fact and a difference of opinion that you should understand. I respect your points, and am simply suggesting that you and other gun advocates take on a more inclusive/less aggressive approach to the conversation. The best way to progress is to understand your opponent. I see too much of both sides spiraling down a path of talking points that rally their base and repel the opposition. I also believe that the "Moral" argument is on the anti-gun side. It is a fact that guns are killing machines thus the gun rights advocates have more of a responsibility to give reassurance and work on measures to improve safety and responsibility to make the non-gun owners feel more at ease. Calling people stupid or oppressive for wanting to feel safe isn't the right approach.

Like i've mentioned, I am a gun owner and I am not interested in jumping through a bunch of hoops if I want to sell or buy guns. I also am very empathetic to those who fear guns and those who have been victims of gun violence. I hope when you continue conversations about this subject you stick to the valid effective points and can put ego aside to acknowledge the fears, concerns and valid points of your opposition. You have a lot working for you with historical data about effectiveness of gun control measures, use that in a constructive way. There are many countries that have seen massive failures with gun control but some have seen success so we should be objective in our review of the effective and ineffective measures. An absolutist POV will never work.

You are obviously passionate and convinced in the validity of all your arguments, I'm just telling you that the other side feels the same way and there IS middle ground, but you stick to the stronger talking points. As I mentioned before, bring up the slippery slope, genocide, or safety in arming the masses and you will lose the attention of your opposition and thus remain at a stand still.

You are NOT a gun owner. You are a poser trying to come across as "reasonable" when you are anything but reasonable. Reasonable people need not lie. Reasonable people need not prey on the emotions of desperately sad people to try and get their way. No, i suggest you follow your own advice.

 

[Slade3200]

You are NOT a gun owner. You are a poser trying to come across as "reasonable" when you are anything but reasonable. Reasonable people need not lie. Reasonable people need not prey on the emotions of desperately sad people to try and get their way. No, i suggest you follow your own advice.

I'm not a gun owner?? How in the world would you know that?? You've made your arrogance and ignorance very apparent. Not that I need to prove anything to you but I own 3 S&Ws, a Rossi 38 special, a Glock 23, a Glock 27, a Ruger 9mm, and a Remington 22... Just because I don't share your views and can look at a very tough situation in a diplomatic way doesn't mean i'm a crazy anti-gun, liberal, leftist. I appreciate the mechanism and raw awesome power that guns contain. It is something that should be respected and a power that only responsible individuals should contain. I want to protect guns by making sure, to the best of my ability, that ONLY the responsible are the ones that own them. I'd hope for a similar attitude from fellow gun owners, but I get the opposite. Instead I hear a bunch of hot heads spouting out half truths and paranoid talking points. They represent an organization that I am embarrassed to be a part of because they are unable to have a civil discussion. It is extremely disappointing.

 

[Rustic]

You are NOT a gun owner. You are a poser trying to come across as "reasonable" when you are anything but reasonable. Reasonable people need not lie. Reasonable people need not prey on the emotions of desperately sad people to try and get their way. No, i suggest you follow your own advice.

I'm not a gun owner?? How in the world would you know that?? You've made your arrogance and ignorance very apparent. Not that I need to prove anything to you but I own 3 S&Ws, a Rossi 38 special, a Glock 23, a Glock 27, a Ruger 9mm, and a Remington 22... Just because I don't share your views and can look at a very tough situation in a diplomatic way doesn't mean i'm a crazy anti-gun, liberal, leftist. I appreciate the mechanism and raw awesome power that guns contain. It is something that should be respected and a power that only responsible individuals should contain. I want to protect guns by making sure, to the best of my ability, that ONLY the responsible are the ones that own them. I'd hope for a similar attitude from fellow gun owners, but I get the opposite. Instead I hear a bunch of hot heads spouting out half truths and paranoid talking points. They represent an organization that I am embarrassed to be a part of because they are unable to have a civil discussion. It is extremely disappointing.

 

[Slade3200]

Ha, finally one of your annoying photos made me laugh

 

[Slade3200]

No, YOU make my point. You try and bring morality into a discussion that has nothing to do with morals. That is a religious position. We are talking about Rights and laws that transcend religion. Funny how you try and deflect by claiming I am the one pointing the finger when I was showing you to be the hypocrite. I was bending your very own finger and making you point it back at YOU.

You don't think the gun discussion has anything to do with Morals? What world are you living in? It makes sense for you to make that claim as it is an argument that you will not win, so discrediting it is one way to go about it.

Religion has nothing to do with this either as you claim...well maybe a little for some, but it is a very moral issue for many Americans.

You may call me a hypocrate if you like but I have acknowledged many points agree'd with members from both sides of the argument. What have you done but blindly defend your club and throw out insults. Keep up with your attitude and see where it takes you... The world is moving towards progression you can join the discussion or be left behind.

 

[Rustic]

No, YOU make my point. You try and bring morality into a discussion that has nothing to do with morals. That is a religious position. We are talking about Rights and laws that transcend religion. Funny how you try and deflect by claiming I am the one pointing the finger when I was showing you to be the hypocrite. I was bending your very own finger and making you point it back at YOU.

You don't think the gun discussion has anything to do with Morals? What world are you living in? It makes sense for you to make that claim as it is an argument that you will not win, so discrediting it is one way to go about it.

Religion has nothing to do with this either as you claim...well maybe a little for some, but it is a very moral issue for many Americans.

You may call me a hypocrate if you like but I have acknowledged many points agree'd with members from both sides of the argument. What have you done but blindly defend your club and throw out insults. Keep up with your attitude and see where it takes you... The world is moving towards progression you can join the discussion or be left behind.

 

[Centinel]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas?

Personally, I don't think it's right to use the force of government against one who hasn't committed a crime with an identifiable victim who has been harmed. That's the reason for my opposition.