No announcement yet.

Worth a Watch

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Worth a Watch

    Originally posted by Pipestone Kid View Post
    Good points, Bob. However, the auto manufacturers are
    constantly striving to make their vehicles safer (some because of laws) while gun manufacturers keep coming with weapons that kill faster, more and are easier to reload. We pass laws mandating safety in other areas, why not this one? As i said in an earlier post, I own a number of guns, have a permit to carry, and support the 2nd amendment. I don't believe that I or anyone else should have weapons that are originally designed for war. Pretty soon we will have people running around with rocket launchers to hunt rabbits.

    Would you please explain how new guns kill faster, kill more and are easier to reload? Also, how would you make guns "Safer". Thanks


    • #17
      Re: Worth a Watch

      Originally posted by EJW1 View Post
      Would you please explain how new guns kill faster, kill more and are easier to reload? Also, how would you make guns "Safer". Thanks
      1. A gun with a 30 round clip can kill 30 faster than one with a 5 round clip.
      2. See No. 1
      3 Drop a clip and pop in another
      4. I was not referring to making guns "safer. I was talking about the discussion of banning certain weapons.


      • #18
        Re: Worth a Watch

        Originally posted by CWSmith View Post

        While I do agree that the mother acquired the weapons "legally", and that therefore it can be said that this "legal" ownership and the laws did not and could not have stopped this massacre. BUT, I respectfully disagree that the law, as it exists, was enough or even carried out properly!

        Here we have a woman who within the law purchased several weapons. The question I have is, "Where were the background checks?" And more to the point, should she have been allowed to purchase such weapons without purpose, and should the background check be so shallow that we are only concerned with a matter of "no criminal offense record", or should we be looking at other things.

        After all, her son had a record of mental health... should that not flag concerns of safety and opened the door for deeper investigation? Should we not be looking at situations, both with regards to purpose of the weapons, the security of their storage, and the exposure of such things as regarding the safety of the young man and the household itself. Should we have not been legally concerned for the proximity and availability of these weapons, violent behaviour, and even the violent entertainment and weapons practice in the accompanyment of his mother? And should not the gun community in itself paid attention to this member? Afterall, if I see the 14 year old neighbor kid driving his family's car up and down the driveway, doesn't that raise some concerns about the parent and the safety of the child, and to the people who walk that sidewalk?

        Listen, I am not against gun ownership and I even find myself questioning the wisdom of banning "assault" weapons on a broad scale. However, there must be some balance, for the safety of society in general, and certainly to the safety of our law enforcement officials. One might wish to argue that an assault weapon CAN be used for hunting, but generally that is not the purpose, nor is it the most efficient appliance for that purpose. More my thinking is that there is a certain attraction to these things and it is mostly to that end that we wish to own them. Hey, they are fun to shoot, plain and simple! (Mind you, I'm not making fun or belittling that mindset, it is a long recognized part of being male... mentally we are attracted to weaponry, right along with uniforms, medals, flags, cool cars, tools and other badges of honor that our male instincts yearn for, it is what it is and we are all part of that... it is also very much part of being a young man, and some of us never grow old in that respect.)

        What I find very distasteful however is the FEAR that is constantly being promoted as justification for such weapons, for high-capacity magazines, and for a total hindrance of regulation, control, and other governances. In the face of the massacres that we continue to see, we really need to mature our thinking and step up to ensure the safety of our children and our communities. To that end, I am fully for background checks, and I am fully for regulating purpose. Buying and owning a high-velocity weapon of any kind, or an assault weapon, without a defined purpose and extensive background and security checks is just stupid. And I'll go so far as to say that while a guy living in a rural area might well pass such muster, the same guy living in the city on a 60 ft wide lot should have restrictions put on his ownership (like yeah, but you must keep it at the gun club or range... in the city, you'll surely shoot your neighbor's eye out).

        To go along with that, a licensed hunter may well have purpose and thus possesion, but a guy living in an apartment, never hunted, and has no purpose except his FEAR and possible paranoia should be restricted as to what, weapons he may possess. In his or her case, a weapon for personal defense and defense of property is totally respected, but it must be appropriate to the purpose, with respect to collateral damage and downrange, background fatality.

        The point is, weapons we have a guaranteed right to... but NOT any weapon! And weapons of certain types and potentials need to be restricted for the safety of the rest of us.

        CWS, the sort of background check you are suggesting probably would have prevented that killer from obtaining his weapons from his mother. I don't know if he would have or could have gotten them elsewhere? I wonder how such an extensive background check could be done? Do you ask applicants to be truthful or send investigators to research family mental issues? A very complicated if not impossible suggestion, although well worth it if lives can be saved. I stronly disagree with your suggestion that "fear" drives high capacity or any gun posession for that matter. Such a blanket statement is far too much of a reach. Many folks have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in their homes, not out of fear, but out of responsibility to protect from fires. I have a shotgun in my home not out of fear, but out of a desire to protect myself and my loved ones. Sure there are some folks who are very insecure, then again there are those who have been the victims of violent crime and do not want to be victimized again. This is a vey complicated issue, and it's hard to suggest absolutes regarding what should be allowed for another person. Maybe a smaller law abiding person can't handle a shotgun and would be better off protecting themslves with a high capacity, lightweight firearm? Should they be victimized because they can't own your idea of an acceptable firearm?
        I am fine with all sorts of reforms if the system makes crime and punishment it's number one priority. There are too many criminals hurting folks and repeat offending for the system to ignore and focus on lawful gun owners. Do it all, but don't assume you can simply pass reforms on legal owners and solve very much.


        • #19
          Re: Worth a Watch

          CWS, i don't see how it would be possible to discriminate against someone because they live in a high population density area such as a city, and say a rancher, farmer, or rural home owner can own a firearm the city dweller can not. And if it could be made law somehow, everyone would move out of the city to the burbs as many already have, putting even greater impact onenviromental resources, animal habitats, pressure on farmers to sell to developers, etc.
          "It's a table saw, do you know where your fingers are?" Bob D. 2006


          1/20/2017 - The Beginning of a new Error


          • #20
            Re: Worth a Watch

            It isn't about "assuming" anything. People will be resistant no matter what. The issue of "guns" is extremely inflamatory, and those who are the strongest promoters of "guns", do push the FEAR factor on most everybody they can. The NRA leadership over the last two decades are more apt to promote 'fear of the government' more than anything else.

            You say that you wish to protect your home and that is why you have a shotgun... okay, that is fear, fear of someone wishing to break in and harm your family, take your stuff, etc. While we might all have that concern, most of us will take some measure for better locks and barriers. But IMHO, when you take the steps to actually arm yourself, then the situation has grown well beyond concern, and you now actually are fearful enough to take appropriate steps to actually kill in the defense of your family. If you didn't have that fear, you wouldn't have a shotgun. Mind you, there is nothing wrong, whatsoever with your thinking in those terms and a shotgun is a great choice and I applaud you for that, if you have found reason for it.

            But, if you were stocking up with ammunition for your shotgun (like do you have a few hundred shells readily at hand?), or if you're setting is in a closely populated area and you've decided a semi-automatic assault rifle and a thousand rounds of ammunition were absolutely essential to your safety, I'd be wondering about you and consider your fear to be unfounded. (How many assailants does one expect to fend off and for how long... or are they planning for a total breakdown of society?)

            Let me differentiate however, between a person with such concerns (and ammunition stock), and a guy who is simply a gun enthusiast, owns several weapons, including even an assault rifle or a collection of assault rifles and may also buy his ammunition in bulk because, for a thousand rounds or more, he get's a good price; AND, he goes out and shoots often.... totally different scenario, and generally not one posing any dangers to the public.

            With proper investigation/background checks one is clearly a responsible owner and the other is perhaps a potential problem!

            The concern is, for me anyway, that you can't have laws that just broadly prohibit everybody. Some people are responsible, have a legitimate interest, and may well be carrying on thier interest in a safe, responsible way. But as it stands now, we don't look at any of this; AND, because of that we now have a situation where our society is expressing thier rightful concerns about the unbridled proliferation of weapons to anyone who has the money for them. That backlash is NOT fair to every gun owner or to potential gun owner enthusiasts. It is unfortunately a rightful step to be taken in the many massacres that we have seen in the last couple of years.

            But making the case of "ownership" based on the fear of government, the absolute RIGHT to have everyone own anything, is a major distortion and thus a problem. Sooner or later something will have to happen and unless we face it now, that something is probably going to be ugly and perhaps even riotous.... in other words, without logic and without logical efforts by the responsible gun community, we may well bring all this fearmonging into reality. It simply cannot continue to expand as it has over the last several decades.

            The other part of the problem, and I feel it is a very serious problem, is that way too many gun owners feel empowered and are more than willing to brandish that power or to take on an aggresive stance, because they are now armed! To me, there are some instances that I've seen applauded that were just damned stupid and should have been looked at as such. Probably most evident was the video that the father made of him teaching his disrespectful daughter a lesson... by putting a bullet into her laptop. Then there was the guy who told the story of his neighbor coming over to his yard wearing his pistol and telling him he didn't want to see any more leaves dumped on his property, or the bunch of guys showing up at a political rally and they all "open-carried" their weapons as a political statement!

            In my thinking, anyone who uses his weapon to make a point of argument, outside of self-defense is a seriously ill-effected person, and should not be allowed to possess a firearm of any kind.



            • #21
              Re: Worth a Watch

              CWS, I still disagree with your fear theory. I know that I have locks on my door to provide a minimum of security, but that it takes a firearm to protect against the event of home invasion. Home invasion is a real event in my area and it is not our of fear but our of responsible reaction to a real and not imagined situation that I have a shotgun. I have not been the victim of a violent crime, I have no fear of being harmed, but I take precautions because I am responsible. I know the police cannot respond in time to protect me and my family if someone is kicking in my front door.
              I totally agree that guns are empowering and some folks can't handle the power. There are those in law enforcement who abuse their power. There are drivers who use their vehicles as an extension of themselves in an agressive manner. We could argue and post here limitless examples of external things that empower their owners and result in possible or realized harm to others. Boats, motorcycles, jet skis, snowmobiles, etc. when purposely used in an agressive manner to intimidate others are not less harmful than firearms. You can't take human nature, good or bad out of people, you can try and legislate safety protocols for all the aforementioned and legal consequences.


              • #22
                Re: Worth a Watch

                Originally posted by Bob D. View Post
                CWS, i don't see how it would be possible to discriminate against someone because they live in a high population density area such as a city, and say a rancher, farmer, or rural home owner can own a firearm the city dweller can not. And if it could be made law somehow, everyone would move out of the city to the burbs as many already have, putting even greater impact onenviromental resources, animal habitats, pressure on farmers to sell to developers, etc.

                I don't see how either, at least as the laws currently exist. But hopefully you do see my point or perhaps I should say "concern". While a person and an assault rifle or high-powered/velocity weapon in a rural setting may not be of concern to anyone, even if the owner's sole purpose was for 'defensive measures'. Imagine finding out that the guy in your apartment building does have such a weapon and has obtained it for the sole purpose of defending his turf? While one may not personally feel the need to own a weapon for security purposes (and you might well be wrong in that feeling), but certainly you would now be concerned that this character may well let go with a burst that would endanger your family.... and I think that potential should be a valid concern.

                So, should we not be addressing such issues. The 2nd Amendment provides for the right to keep and bear arms; but should it infringe upon your safety if you are living adjacent to someone who has this dangerous potential?

                I say this because just a few weeks ago a four-story apartment complex was gutted by fire, putting 18 families into the street. No one was injured fortunately, but all the apartments were lost along with all the familys' possesions. Investigation determined that the fire was started by an explosion in a meth lab located in one of the fourth-floor apartments. Along with that was discovered multiple weapons, including an assault rifle I've been told.

                So, I'm thinking that while the apartment itself was pretty catastrophic, at least there was no deaths or injuries... BUT, what if there had been a raid or worse another drug-related gang attack on this apartment and the occupant decided to open up with his assault rifle? There were lots of children in this apartment complex.

                I make this point only because the whole issue has many facets to it, and it is not a simple matter that says 'a person has a right' without any restrictions, considerations, or concerns for the endangerment of others.

                Last edited by CWSmith; 03-25-2013, 06:50 PM.


                • #23
                  Re: Worth a Watch

                  I would never imagined a day would come where I would type this but... For once Faux News is right.
                  Want Ammo? Go to Therapy! |

                  Still, I like to believe that once Fox's gilded shine is scratched off, that FL senator's words were really twisted around, knowing how much Fox News are context artists.
                  The first questions out of MY mouth was "What kind of bullets?" "Where theses just one electred official's opinion being viewed as policy?"