The Right To Bear Arms

[Issa]

USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?

what do I need a gun for? many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights

Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.

Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.

Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.

Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.

You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?

We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.

So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?

I'm sorry more guns more deaths....dozens of countries don't have mass shootings due to the non availability of guns in the US. America is still stuck in the 18th century when or comes to guns.

 

[The Derp]

derp has no idea what he's talking about.

No, the ones with no clue are the people who don't know what responsibility is, yet call themselves responsible while doing everything they can to act irresponsibly.

My firearms are keep in a safe with a 6 digit combination.

So congrats! You're that much less negligent a gun owner.

The numbers are random, and not based on anyone's birthday

So what? Thieves don't know how to crack a safe? Even a digital one? Someone should notify banks of that.

They only leave the safe when I go tot eh range, or I'm cleaning them.

Ah, so not for self-defense, not for hunting, for your personal enjoyment. And that's fine if you only take them when you do those two things. A burglar doesn't, though, and burglars can break into safes. They do it all the time.

TMy firearms are safer than his car.

Well, that's what you think but there's no comparison.

 

[The Derp]

I don't encourage anyone to do anything because unlike you I realize that what other people choose to do is none of my fucking business

So just when I thought you were less negligent a person, you go and dash my hopes and dreams with this trash.

 

[The Derp]

USA is the worst country in terms of gu related dearhs/mass shootings. So there is clearly a gun problem. Why do you need a gun ? Insecure? Or ready to kill when you are pissed at the world?

what do I need a gun for? many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights

Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.

Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.

Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.

Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.

You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?

We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.

So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?

Since 1980, deaths from cars have been cut in half. That was accomplished solely because of government action.

 

[Auld Phart]

derp has no idea what he's talking about.

No, the ones with no clue are the people who don't know what responsibility is, yet call themselves responsible while doing everything they can to act irresponsibly.

My firearms are keep in a safe with a 6 digit combination.

So congrats! You're that much less negligent a gun owner.

The numbers are random, and not based on anyone's birthday

So what? Thieves don't know how to crack a safe? Even a digital one? Someone should notify banks of that.

They only leave the safe when I go tot eh range, or I'm cleaning them.

Ah, so not for self-defense, not for hunting, for your personal enjoyment. And that's fine if you only take them when you do those two things. A burglar doesn't, though, and burglars can break into safes. They do it all the time.

TMy firearms are safer than his car.

Well, that's what you think but there's no comparison.

They are definitely safer.


They are locked up when not in use.

Is your car?

How secure is your garage, or do you leave it in the driveway?

Your car is far more likely to be stolen than any of my firearms,

Yup, I'm definitely more responsible than you are.

 

[The Derp]

and it seems you are only worried about the money.

Aren't you the people who are willing to sell guns without a background check because you want the money?

The money is what forces personal responsibility. Insurance = personal responsibility. That used to be something Conservatives believed...until Obama came out in favor of it. Now Conservatives argue against personal responsibility while pretending they're responsible. What a laugh riot.

NOT the fact it is more dangerous than a firearm.

And because it's dangerous, it has to be insured against the risk it poses. No such responsibility exists for gun owners. So you can't call yourselves "responsible". You can only call yourself a degree of negligent. Some are more negligent than others, but you're all negligent.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I essentially see two vocal camps in here. The ones that want to get rid of the guns are very straight forward about it. We'll call the "Nothing". Meanwhile, we also have another group that we will have the "All".

The Nothing want to ban all firearms from everyone. This is really a very small representative group. They, more or less, say that without guns, there would be no gun crimes or accidents. True to some extent. But the Gun Violence is, say, Britain still happens. And Accidents will happen with or without guns. Not going to happen in my lifetime.

Now the All wants no regulation on any part of their lives. Not just in Guns but everything. More or less, get the Government completely out of their lives. Well, not quite out of their lives. They still want the highways, and other social services that they think is part of the right to live in the US. They want the Electricity and Natural Gas, the Trains, and more that if they weren't depending on them they would be calling them Socialist. So, it because ALL laws governing the use, possessing and sale of Firearms should be banned. Again, not going to happen in my lifetime.

I am like MOST people. We believe in common sense regulations on everything. Here are some of the arguments:

Common Sense: Firearms, for the most part are the right of every American
Uncommon Response: NO, WE NEED TO GET RID OF ALL FIREARMS!!!!
NOT IN MOST CASES, IT'S AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT!!!!!

Common sense: We need to prevent those on the No Fly List from purchasing Firearms
Uncommon response: OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!!
NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!

Common sense: We need to handle firearms exactly like we do Alchohol. It's okay for an 18 year of to drink in the privacy of their home and with the consent of their parents or guardians who assumes all responsibility. But raise the non consent age to 21 just like Booze.
We get two uncommon responses on this one:
OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
and NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!

Common sense: We need to require all firearms sales to go through a background check
Uncommon Response: OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
THERE SHOULD BE NO BACKGROUND CHECKS, NO FIREARMS!!!!!!

Common sense: Reclassify the AR and the AK to the next level of Firearms License. Before the AR became the rifle of choice for mass killings, the AR was. During Reagan's days, Reagan want the AK to have to be reclassified that way. He called them Assault Rifles. It became a law for a few years catching the Military Origin Rifles along with some handguns. It wasn't a Ban, it was a reclassification
Uncommon Response: OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
NOT GOOD ENOUGH, WE DEMAND ALL FIREARMS BE BANNED!!!!!!

There is a definite pattern here. The Alls and the Nothings. It becomes All or nothing. And common sense is completely removed from the equation. For instance, the School Children are actually trying to get some common sense laws passed like the ones I mentioned above. They asking for those three. Not out of reasons and certain will not cause any bans. I also added the fourth. These are common sense laws that do not ban the firearms but would have stopped all but one Mass Shooting; The one in Vegas, from occurring. Yes, the weapons might have been bought but it would have taken more time and flags would have been raised giving the Local and Federals time to prevent it from happening. The One in Nevada was done by a season shooter who would have qualified for almost any firearms license including Automatic Weapons and had the knowledge to use the law to his own ends.

Now they are putting armed guards in the High Schools here using the Educational District funds to do it. That means that there will be even less funds for books, supplies, etc. that the Teachers help to support out of their own salaries. The only thing we really get out of this is a poorer education for our Children.

I support the School Children and their Parents. I don't support either side of the Alls or Nothings. It's called Common Sense. Sometimes the best solution comes from the mouths of Babes.

 

[The Derp]

They are definitely safer.

Maybe the gun is safer, but gun owners aren't safer than drivers. Simply by virtue of the fact that you take on unnecessary risk, then don't think you're responsible for any of it.

They are locked up when not in use.
Is your car?
How secure is your garage, or do you leave it in the driveway?
Your car is far more likely to be stolen than any of my firearms,
Yup, I'm definitely more responsible than you are.

That's great, but cars are insured...guns aren't. So there's no personal responsibility when it comes to firearms. I'm old enough to remember when Conservatives supported personal responsibility. But that got thrown out the window once Obama came out in favor of it.

Make no mistake, the only argument I'm making here is that there is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner" other than one who gave up their guns. Merely bringing a gun into your home is an act of negligence, and all you people do is either increase or decrease your negligence. No gun owner is truly "responsible", it's an impossibility.

 

[The Derp]

I essentially see two vocal camps in here. The ones that want to get rid of the guns are very straight forward about it. We'll call the "Nothing". Meanwhile, we also have another group that we will have the "All".

The Nothing want to ban all firearms from everyone. This is really a very small representative group. They, more or less, say that without guns, there would be no gun crimes or accidents. True to some extent. But the Gun Violence is, say, Britain still happens. And Accidents will happen with or without guns. Not going to happen in my lifetime.

Now the All wants no regulation on any part of their lives. Not just in Guns but everything. More or less, get the Government completely out of their lives. Well, not quite out of their lives. They still want the highways, and other social services that they think is part of the right to live in the US. They want the Electricity and Natural Gas, the Trains, and more that if they weren't depending on them they would be calling them Socialist. So, it because ALL laws governing the use, possessing and sale of Firearms should be banned. Again, not going to happen in my lifetime.

I am like MOST people. We believe in common sense regulations on everything. Here are some of the arguments:

Common Sense: Firearms, for the most part are the right of every American
Uncommon Response: NO, WE NEED TO GET RID OF ALL FIREARMS!!!!
NOT IN MOST CASES, IT'S AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT!!!!!

Common sense: We need to prevent those on the No Fly List from purchasing Firearms
Uncommon response: OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!!
NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!

Common sense: We need to handle firearms exactly like we do Alchohol. It's okay for an 18 year of to drink in the privacy of their home and with the consent of their parents or guardians who assumes all responsibility. But raise the non consent age to 21 just like Booze.
We get two uncommon responses on this one:
OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
and NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!

Common sense: We need to require all firearms sales to go through a background check
Uncommon Response: OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
THERE SHOULD BE NO BACKGROUND CHECKS, NO FIREARMS!!!!!!

Common sense: Reclassify the AR and the AK to the next level of Firearms License. Before the AR became the rifle of choice for mass killings, the AR was. During Reagan's days, Reagan want the AK to have to be reclassified that way. He called them Assault Rifles. It became a law for a few years catching the Military Origin Rifles along with some handguns. It wasn't a Ban, it was a reclassification
Uncommon Response: OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
NOT GOOD ENOUGH, WE DEMAND ALL FIREARMS BE BANNED!!!!!!

There is a definite pattern here. The Alls and the Nothings. It becomes All or nothing. And common sense is completely removed from the equation. For instance, the School Children are actually trying to get some common sense laws passed like the ones I mentioned above. They asking for those three. Not out of reasons and certain will not cause any bans. I also added the fourth. These are common sense laws that do not ban the firearms but would have stopped all but one Mass Shooting; The one in Vegas, from occurring. Yes, the weapons might have been bought but it would have taken more time and flags would have been raised giving the Local and Federals time to prevent it from happening. The One in Nevada was done by a season shooter who would have qualified for almost any firearms license including Automatic Weapons and had the knowledge to use the law to his own ends.

Now they are putting armed guards in the High Schools here using the Educational District funds to do it. That means that there will be even less funds for books, supplies, etc. that the Teachers help to support out of their own salaries. The only thing we really get out of this is a poorer education for our Children.

I support the School Children and their Parents. I don't support either side of the Alls or Nothings. It's called Common Sense. Sometimes the best solution comes from the mouths of Babes.

If you read a single one of my posts, you'd see that I don't support banning guns at all.

So this thing you're doing, where you try and pigeon-hole people into two camps to oversimplify the debate, is exactly the kind of binary thinking that causes division and prevents compromise.

 

[Ame®icano]

Because they told the DOJ survey (that's been around since 1973) they had their guns stolen but didn't tell the police. FFS, are you being deliberately stupid or is this not an act? Or did you think I wasn't referring to a DOJ survey? Or did you just not fully read what I posted? Did you do that Conservative thing and sloppily and lazily craft a response to something you didn't even carefully read? Sure fuckin' seems like it...you're not proving responsibility by doing sloppy work, BTW.

I haven't been in this thread from the beginning. I joined few days ago and I didn't notice mention of the survey. DOJ survay? OMG, that has to be something serious, where can I find it?

By the way, data investment management organization Kantar, 75% Americans believe that most surveys you hear about are biased toward a particular point of view.

Tell me, why would anyone sane, who own gun legally not report the theft of the gun?

Not if the thief's been to your house before and scoped it out. Which they do, BTW, when they pose as landscapers, exterminators, deliverypeople, or any other type of person that would come to your house for work. Secondly, alarms can be disabled, safes can be cracked, there is no 100% successful way to keep your guns secured. There will always be the risk there.

I don't care if is landscaper or rocket scientist, the moment that unauthorized person open the door, the alarm goes off. If you can find the safe, crack it and leave the property in 5 minutes, and even if you avoid police, you still have to deal with my neighbors. I'd say, I'll rather deal with the police than with them.

Is there a risk of having guns stolen? Of course it is. But the real question is, is that risk you're willing to take?

Besides, you've argued that you shouldn't be held responsible for having your gun stolen anyway, so why do you have any security?

Nope, I argued that I am not responsible for other people actions. If they commit the crime with the stolen gun, that crime is not my responsibility. I even said it in the very same post you responded to. See below.

You being retard is also not my responsibility.

Of course, I am not responsible for other people actions.
If someone steals your car and run over someone with it, are you responsible for it?

It depends. But we're not talking about cars, which are insured; we're talking about guns, which are not.[/QUOTE]

Insurance covers damages, and has nothing to do with crime being committed.

 

[Auld Phart]

and it seems you are only worried about the money.

Aren't you the people who are willing to sell guns without a background check because you want the money?

The money is what forces personal responsibility. Insurance = personal responsibility. That used to be something Conservatives believed...until Obama came out in favor of it. Now Conservatives argue against personal responsibility while pretending they're responsible. What a laugh riot.

NOT the fact it is more dangerous than a firearm.

And because it's dangerous, it has to be insured against the risk it poses. No such responsibility exists for gun owners. So you can't call yourselves "responsible". You can only call yourself a degree of negligent. Some are more negligent than others, but you're all negligent.

insurance is not going to keep one single person from getting run over.

do you have ANY idea how silly you sound pushing that bullshit?

If I had insurance on a gun, would that keep it from killing anyone?

what are you, an insurance salesman?

you sound like one.

"Buy insurance, and all your problems will go away"

you can run over of shoot someone, and your insurance will make it ALLLLLL better.


BULLSHIT!

insurance is AFTER the fact, it won't stop a crime, whether the crime is caused by a firearm, or a car.

You have the most LUDICROUS arguments I have EVER seen.

Insurance going to stop a hit and run?



insurance going to prevent someone stealing my personal property, be it car or gun.



you dont' have an argument, you have talking points, expanded into a rant.

you should have saved your time, and ours

 

[Auld Phart]

They are definitely safer.

Maybe the gun is safer, but gun owners aren't safer than drivers. Simply by virtue of the fact that you take on unnecessary risk, then don't think you're responsible for any of it.

They are locked up when not in use.
Is your car?
How secure is your garage, or do you leave it in the driveway?
Your car is far more likely to be stolen than any of my firearms,
Yup, I'm definitely more responsible than you are.

That's great, but cars are insured...guns aren't. So there's no personal responsibility when it comes to firearms. I'm old enough to remember when Conservatives supported personal responsibility. But that got thrown out the window once Obama came out in favor of it.

Make no mistake, the only argument I'm making here is that there is no such thing as a "responsible gun owner" other than one who gave up their guns. Merely bringing a gun into your home is an act of negligence, and all you people do is either increase or decrease your negligence. No gun owner is truly "responsible", it's an impossibility.

" No gun owner is truly "responsible", it's an impossibility."

Nor is any driver.

sell your car

 

[The Derp]

I haven't been in this thread from the beginning. I joined few days ago and I didn't notice mention of the survey. DOJ survay? OMG, that has to be something serious, where can I find it?By the way, data investment management organization Kantar, 75% Americans believe that most surveys you hear about are biased toward a particular point of view.Tell me, why would anyone sane, who own gun legally not report the theft of the gun?

Sigh...so this particular survey is run by the DOJ and has been around since 1973. Not sure what "bias" you could even infer from it and I can see you trying to preemptively gaslight it because you don't want to accept the conclusions from it. Which is pretty shitty, dude.

I don't care if is landscaper or rocket scientist, the moment that unauthorized person open the door, the alarm goes off. If you can find the safe, crack it and leave the property in 5 minutes, and even if you avoid police, you still have to deal with my neighbors. I'd say, I'll rather deal with the police than with them.

Posturing. You keep making this argument that the cops will show up right away, which invalidates your argument that the gun will protect you. So which is it? Do you need the gun because the cops won't be there, or not? And what if one of the thieves is your neighbor?

See, all of this doesn't establish responsibility, it establishes negligence. A degree of negligence, but negligence nonetheless.

Is there a risk of having guns stolen? Of course it is. But the real question is, is that risk you're willing to take?

The risk isn't to the criminal, it's to society which will be victimized by the criminal with the gun they stole from you. So you're still selfishly putting others at risk for your own insecurities. That's the act of an irresponsible garbage person.

Nope, I argued that I am not responsible for other people actions. If they commit the crime with the stolen gun, that crime is not my responsibility. I even said it in the very same post you responded to. See below.

You are definitely responsible for the actions of others when you make it possible for them to steal from you to then act against society. If you didn't have a gun, the thief wouldn't steal it and then it wouldn't be used in crimes. You are wholly responsible for your guns getting stolen. 100%. And you're also responsible for what your stolen gun does because you lacked the responsibility to keep it from being stolen. Again, nothing you're saying here establishes any level of "personal responsibility" and it's quite interesting how you see negligence as responsibility.

Insurance covers damages, and has nothing to do with crime being committed.

You better check your insurance policy because it's not that simplistic.

 

[The Derp]

" No gun owner is truly "responsible", it's an impossibility."
Nor is any driver.

Which is why drivers have to be insured.

So when you bring up cars, you make the case for mandatory gun insurance.

 

[Auld Phart]

" No gun owner is truly "responsible", it's an impossibility."
Nor is any driver.

Which is why drivers have to be insured.

So when you bring up cars, you make the case for mandatory gun insurance.

no, but you keep thinking that.

having insurance doesn't prevent accidents.

whether it's on a car, a house, or a firearm.

Try a different shtick

 

[The Derp]

insurance is not going to keep one single person from getting run over.

I NEVER SAID IT WOULD, though it's likely it will since that's what happened when drivers started being required to carry insurance coverage. It's one of the reasons why traffic deaths have declined by 50% since 1980. So why are you still using this straw man after I already burned it down twice? What insurance does is establish responsibility. Gun owners have no responsibility and aren't responsible people. Insurance solves that. Insurance used to pay out for the damages your gun will cause.

do you have ANY idea how silly you sound pushing that bullshit?
If I had insurance on a gun, would that keep it from killing anyone?

It might! But it will definitely force you to be responsible for your weapon by paying an insurance premium for the risk you carry. Personal responsibility. For some reason, you argue against that. Not sure why. Probably because you're an entitled brat.

what are you, an insurance salesman?
ou sound like one.
"Buy insurance, and all your problems will go away"
you can run over of shoot someone, and your insurance will make it ALLLLLL better.

You should have been the set designer for The Wicker Man because all you do is build straw men.

What insurance does is establish your responsibility for this dangerous thing you now own. For some reason, you don't think you should be held responsible for it. Hence, you're no "responsible gun owner" because putting society at risk for your personal insecurities isn't the act of a responsible person.

I can't help it if you don't understand what insurance is.

 

[The Derp]

havig insurance doesn't prevent accidents

According to whom? If you know that your insurance premium will increase if you act irresponsibly, are you more or less likely to act irresponsibly?

 

[Auld Phart]

insurance is not going to keep one single person from getting run over.

I NEVER SAID IT WOULD, though it's likely it will since that's what happened when drivers started being required to carry insurance coverage. It's one of the reasons why traffic deaths have declined by 50% since 1980. So why are you still using this straw man after I already burned it down twice? What insurance does is establish responsibility. Gun owners have no responsibility and aren't responsible people. Insurance solves that. Insurance used to pay out for the damages your gun will cause.

do you have ANY idea how silly you sound pushing that bullshit?
If I had insurance on a gun, would that keep it from killing anyone?

It might! But it will definitely force you to be responsible for your weapon by paying an insurance premium for the risk you carry. Personal responsibility. For some reason, you argue against that. Not sure why. Probably because you're an entitled brat.

what are you, an insurance salesman?
ou sound like one.
"Buy insurance, and all your problems will go away"
you can run over of shoot someone, and your insurance will make it ALLLLLL better.

You should have been the set designer for The Wicker Man because all you do is build straw men.

What insurance does is establish your responsibility for this dangerous thing you now own. For some reason, you don't think you should be held responsible for it. Hence, you're no "responsible gun owner" because putting society at risk for your personal insecurities isn't the act of a responsible person.

I can't help it if you don't understand what insurance is.

It's one of the reasons why traffic deaths have declined by 50% since 1980.

A better reason would be seatbelts, and better cars

So why are you still using this straw man after I already burned it down twice?

The only thing you've burnt, is your fingers

Gun owners have no responsibility and aren't responsible people.

Seems they are more responsible than most drivers

Probably because you're an entitled brat.

Entitled?

hardly.

I've had to work for everything I've got, including my clothing since the age of 12

You should have been the set designer for The Wicker Man because all you do is build straw men.

Pot, meet kettle.

Your strawman on insurance is making you a laughing stock of the board

I can't help it if you don't understand what insurance is.

I understand it.

I understand it wont' stop someone breaking into my house, won't stop someone stealing my car, wont' stop a bullet.

It will help pay for things AFTER the fact.

but it wont' stop a single death.

(which is why I keep laughing every time you bring it up. it's a ridiculous point)

your rant is a failure.


give it up

 

[Auld Phart]

havig insurance doesn't prevent accidents

According to whom? If you know that your insurance premium will increase if you act irresponsibly, are you more or less likely to act irresponsibly?

 

[Auld Phart]

more fun than debating with derp