Shoot a camera, not a gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
Roger Hicks said:
Well, we're definitely on opposite sides of the debate here, then. What's a 'reason' to own a firearm? As determined by a gun-phobic bureaucrat (or any gun-phobe) who's never fired a gun in his life? 'Gun-phobic bureaucrats' (and friends), incidentally, are why I argue very strongly that those of us who want to keep guns have to propose stratagems that will allow us to do so, rather than trying to block every attempt at any form of control. Because short-sighted stratagems of "Why can't we have whatever we want, without having to explain it to anyone?" will inevitably fail sooner or later.

The words "Cold, dead fingers" come to mind.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

But out of curiosity, what legitimate excuse do you have to own any form of gun?
 
digitalintrigue said:
I'm just being realistic.
Click to expand...

For values of "realistic" that include "resistant", by my reading.

digitalintrigue said:
You said it would be 'harder to get guns.' You seem to forget there are 300 million guns that already exist...if there is a law that could be drafted that legislates them out of existence...I have a unicorn to show you.
Click to expand...

No, I think I cited that that very fact, that the existence of so many guns makes things difficult. And my proposals do handle that: buyback will get some of them. Not a ton, but some.

I would first get serious on gun transactions. Previous laws have had so many gaping holes in them that they have been ineffective. This is why there needs to be federal law, and more encompassing law, so that you're not just getting new gun sales, you're getting used gun sales.

You need to start tracking gun transactions. When you start tracking transactions, it will be harder for bad eggs to dip into the unregulated, unlimited flow of guns that exists. Easy gun acquisition becomes more difficult gun acquisition. The barrier to entry for illegal acquisition becomes higher.

And again, it's a false requirement that my job is to show that I can get rid of 300 million guns (my figure was 250 million, but it's generally agreed that there are no good numbers on this). It is satisfactory (I believe) that the number is reduced over time, and that can happen through transaction monitoring, and registration. Don't pay your license fees, get your guns confiscated. Commit a violent crime, get your guns confiscated. If you're a dealer, if you can't account for your inventory and provide good contact information to every person you've sold to, get your license revoked.

We do these sorts of things for other aspects of life, and it works reasonably well. We force people to have drivers licenses and buy insurance to drive. Getting caught without either is serious. If we treated guns as the important things they are, rather than some divine right that cannot be touched at all ever, then we could get somewhere.
 
Jubb Jubb said:
But out of curiosity, what legitimate excuse do you have to own any form of gun?
Click to expand...

Hunting would be a fine reason. Self-defense is a fine reason (I think it's a generally overblown reason for most folks, but whatever: it's still a fine reason). I don't think that's a persuasive line of argument for gun advocates. I just wonder why they can't be subject to the same sorts of reasonable regulations that cars are subject to.

The 2nd Amendment is not the "enable the people to depose the corrupt government" amendment that the NRA has many folks believing. It was the "new government can't really afford an army if Britain wants to try again and France won't help this time; buy your own guns, folks, we may need you" way to have a proto-army, should the need arise.
 
Anybody's prejudices changed here after 26 pages of this commentary? Ya, know, anti-gunners are now pro- and pro-gunners are now anti-? 🙂 😀

I didn't think so. Now, back to peanut gallery LOL
 
OK so let's say all that is suddenly in place.

Law abiders we don't have to concern ourselves with.

That leaves the law breakers. How many of those people are going to follow these new transaction laws?

How does this stop a legal gun owner from having their guns stolen and used in a crime, as at Sandy Hook?

I really wish I could be more positive about what you posted.

How exactly are the numbers of guns reduced by tracking transactions and using registration? Changing ownership does not remove them from existence.

Having to draft wording so that there will be' confiscation of guns after one commits a violent crime' doesn't really protect the victim or prevent the event does it?

Don't forget that Columbine happened right in the middle of the so-called Assault Weapons ban...
 
Jubb Jubb said:
But out of curiosity, what legitimate excuse do you have to own any form of gun?
Click to expand...
What excuse do you have for banning anything? Consider deaths by motor car. Or smoking. Or palm oil. Or motorcycles. What excuse have I for owning a 40 year old, 200 km/h motorcycle?

I enjoy target shooting, and I firmly believe that if you aren't prepared to shoot what you eat (safely), you shouldn't be allowed to eat meat. Ban guns when you make it compulsory to be a vegetarian -- and see how long you live.

That's before I look at farmers and vermin control. How are you going to deal with that one?

Cheers,

R.
 
frank-grumman said:
Anybody's prejudices changed here after 26 pages of this commentary? Ya, know, anti-gunners are now pro- and pro-gunners are now anti-? 🙂 😀

I didn't think so. Now, back to peanut gallery LOL
Click to expand...
Hesitant as I am to break it to you, 'LOL' does not constitute a rational argument.

The idea is to try to refine our understanding of what is and isn't realistic. Prejudices don't change. Intelligent understanding of the consequences of those prejudices may, however, be another matter for anyone whose mind is not completely closed.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
What excuse do you have for banning anything? Consider deaths by motor car. Or smoking. Or palm oil. Or motorcycles. What excuse have I for owning a 40 year old, 200 km/h motorcycle?

I enjoy target shooting, and I firmly believe that if you aren't prepared to shoot what you eat (safely), you shouldn't be allowed to eat meat. Ban guns when you make it compulsory to be a vegetarian -- and see how long you live.

That's before I look at farmers and vermin control. How are you going to deal with that one?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

A good reason to ban guns is that they kill. They were designed to kill.
 
digitalintrigue said:
OK so let's say all that is suddenly in place.

Law abiders we don't have to concern ourselves with.

That leaves the law breakers. How many of those people are going to follow these new transaction laws?

How does this stop a legal gun owner from having their guns stolen and used in a crime, as at Sandy Hook?

I really wish I could be more positive about what you posted.

How exactly are the numbers of guns reduced by tracking transactions and using registration? Changing ownership does not remove them from existence.

Having to draft wording so that there will be' confiscation of guns after one commits a violent crime' doesn't really protect the victim or prevent the event does it?

Don't forget that Columbine happened right in the middle of the so-called Assault Weapons ban...
Click to expand...
You can't. You're falling for the 'magic wand' fallacy. NOTHING will "make sure this never happens again."

On the other hand, a rational argument balances the likelihood and weight of reduced ill effects against the likelihood and weight of reduced freedoms or good effects. It also takes in the long term: it does not regard the next US presidential election (for example) as being in the unrealistically distant future.

Cheers,

R.
 
First time poster long time rangefinder enthusiastic.

Shoot a camera, not a gun? no offense but I find it a bit cheesy.

I appreciate Jubb's concern on the recent tragedy and him trying to grasp the real solutions.

I apperciate and applaud some of the posters here name a few , Frontman , Conrad , who are not afraid to speak the truth even if it's not popular at the time.

Jubb,

During the prohibition in the 1920's alcohol was banned and there for only criminals handled it.

Criminals rape , murder , rob , all three which are illegal ,yet what makes you think they won't acquire guns illegally?

The truth of the matter is these GUN RESTRICTION LAWS , only harm and leave the law abiding sane citizen unprotected when this type of tragedy occurs.

Truth of the matter is the sane will always outnumber the insane , and if 3-4 adults in that school carried concealed guns the outcome would have been different , and you can't deny that. We can't predict it , but I sure woulda hell taken the chance

I carry a licensed handgun and so did my dad and we have never shot anyone and we are glad for it.

The right to bear arms goes much more deeper than self protection. It allows for normal citizens to standup against their government if they threaten their freedom and lives.

Freedom has it's responsibilities and costs and this is the exact reason why our country has the greatest freedom of all, we are allowed to have the right to bear arms even when the government itself is wrong.

I applaud you Jubb for having a genuine concern,

I dearly hope you will focus your concerns on fixing the issue , by going more in depth about people who are mentally-ill and have physiological concerns. This should be our main focus and our presidents.
 
Jubb Jubb said:
But out of curiosity, what legitimate excuse do you have to own any form of gun?
Click to expand...

I object to the word 'excuse' and suggest 'reason' is a better choice. 🙂

Bear in mind the US Constitution. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the rights of people to own firearms. The law does not require any reason.
 
Roger Hicks said:
You can't. You're falling for the 'magic wand' fallacy. NOTHING will (to use the sanctimonious drivel recycled on countless topics, including this one) "make sure this never happens again."

On the other hand, a rational argument balances the likelihood and weight of reduced ill effects against the likelihood and weight of reduced freedoms or good effects. It also takes in the long term: it does not regard the next US presidential election (for example) as being in the unrealistically distant future.
Click to expand...

Actually, I've been the one pointing out the unicorn/rainbow nature of this entire discussion. 🙂

Thanks for backing up my points...

None of the proposals submitted so far in this thread (and there aren't many), ultimately, would change anything.

OK, so completely ban all semi-automatic rifles. Magically destroy every single one. DONE. How long will it be before there is a mass shooting using semi-automatic handguns, revolvers, or shotguns? ALL of which have been used in the last 30 years of mass shootings.
 
Roger Hicks said:
.22 target pistols were designed to kill? Pretty bad design, then.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what a .22 is. I have never handled a gun and never intend to.

In Obama's words "we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war"

A gun is a weapon of war.
 
Jubb Jubb said:
I have no idea what a .22 is. I have never handled a gun and never intend to.

In Obama's words "we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war"

A gun is a weapon of war.
Click to expand...

Great! Draft a law that accomplishes that, without affecting the 90 million law abiding responsible gun owners. Thank you.
 
Jubb Jubb said:
I have no idea what a .22 is. I have never handled a gun and never intend to.

In Obama's words "we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war"

A gun is a weapon of war.
Click to expand...
Ummm.... No. This is drivel. A target pistol is not a weapon of war. Nor is a shotgun used for vermin control. Your argument is considerably weakened by your assertion that you do not know what a .22 is. If you don't, your upbringing has been dangerously restricted. When you know even a little more about the subject, come back and argue some more. .22 short was commonly used in fairground attractions, and it is risible to refer to it as 'a weapon of war'.

Cheers,

R.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom