AST (After Sean Taylor)-To gun or not to gun?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by That Guy

not really. sean taylor would have had one if not for his felony case (part of the probation was no gun ownership).

the problem with guns is kids finding them and blowing their own heads off with them. i think one of our DEs had friends do that when he was nine, and i know a guy that shotgunned his big toe off messing around in his room.

I won't own one. Our cops here carry M-16s though and theft/assualt/etc here is a great way to get fired and end up in jail very quickly.

If guns are properly stored and kept their sould never be an issue of a kid finding one and shooting themself or a friend. The guy messing around with a loaded gun in his house should not have owned a gun or learned gun safty first.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

most people that support their second amendment rights are borderline fanatical. not saying you, jsarno. but if the shoe fits....

No its the anti gun people who make them out to be fanatical. I support the second and believe people should have the right to own guns and I don't even own one.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by firstdown

No its the anti gun people who make them out to be fanatical. I support the second and believe people should have the right to own guns and I don't even own one.

People make fanaticism sound bad.

Am I "fanatical" about preserving my right to protect myself and my family? Damn straight.

I'm also fanatical about the U.S. not being invaded, I'm fanatical about the Redskins, low cost auto insurance and goo deals on electronics.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by firstdown

No its the anti gun people who make them out to be fanatical. I support the second and believe people should have the right to own guns and I don't even own one.

in my case, this isn't true. i have talked to a bunch of people at my work who are avid believers in the second amendment. once i ask a bunch of them how they would react if the united states would enact total gun control. they all said that would never happen. and if it would, they would have to pry them out of their dead hands. and they were serious. i guess that's how things like Waco happen. because most of those guys own HUNDREDS of guns. which, to me, is even more of a reason to have some sort of gun control. one of thee guys owns a fully automatic AK47. what exactly is the purpose of owning a gun like that?

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by dmek25

in my case, this isn't true. i have talked to a bunch of people at my work who are avid believers in the second amendment. once i ask a bunch of them how they would react if the united states would enact total gun control. they all said that would never happen. and if it would, they would have to pry them out of their dead hands. and they were serious. i guess that's how things like Waco happen. because most of those guys own HUNDREDS of guns. which, to me, is even more of a reason to have some sort of gun control. one of thee guys owns a fully automatic AK47. what exactly is the purpose of owning a gun like that?

I know several people who own fully automatic rifles, none of which are wack-jobs ready to go off the deep end. They're actually all engineers who are just enthusiastic about the engineering and design aspect of firearms.

What's the purpose of owning a $650,000 Mercedes-Benz SLR? Who knows...it's hardly useful on public streets and it's the definition of excess, but I wouldn't begrudge anyone who wanted to drop the necessary dough on it.

Hell, I'd get one myself if I had the money.

[dmek25]

and with being fanatical, most of the time people cant think reasonably, when it comes to the things that they are fanatical about. using the redskins for example. how many times have people said things that are totally off the wall regarding the skins? it happens all the time. your thinking gets obscured. you cant reason properly about the things your are a fanatic about

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by mheisig

I know several people who own fully automatic rifles, none of which are wack-jobs ready to go off the deep end. They're actually all engineers who are just enthusiastic about the engineering and design aspect of firearms.

What's the purpose of owning a $650,000 Mercedes-Benz SLR? Who knows...it's hardly useful on public streets and it's the definition of excess, but I wouldn't begrudge anyone who wanted to drop the necessary dough on it.

Hell, I'd get one myself if I had the money.

im not sure about your analogy? ones a driving machine. the others sole intent is killing. there is a helluva difference

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by firstdown

If guns are properly stored and kept their sould never be an issue of a kid finding one and shooting themself or a friend. The guy messing around with a loaded gun in his house should not have owned a gun or learned gun safty first.

I agree, but the fact is that he does own a gun and he hasn't learned gun safety first.

The problem with the "regulation by education" approach is that it looks at the top 10% of gun owners (in terms of education and responsibility) as the prototypical gun owner. You can't do that - laws and regulations have to address the middle of the bell curve.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by dmek25

im not sure about your analogy? ones a driving machine. the others sole intent is killing. there is a helluva difference

Killing persons with evil intent is a necessary part of life. Always has been, always will be.

Somewhere, at some point, it may come down to you or them. Things are a lot more civilized than they were hundreds or thousands of years ago but that doesn't change the fact that the wicked prey on the weak and innocent.

Yep, a firearm's sole purpose, intent and design is to be an effective and efficient killing machine as possible. What's wrong with that? I hope I never have to use it as such, and in past experiences I have gone well out of my way to preserve life and avoid confrontation, but that doesn't change the possibility of it being required in the future.

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by mheisig

Killing persons with evil intent is a necessary part of life. Always has been, always will be.

Somewhere, at some point, it may come down to you or them. Things are a lot more civilized than they were hundreds or thousands of years ago but that doesn't change the fact that the wicked prey on the weak and innocent.

Yep, a firearm's sole purpose, intent and design is to be an effective and efficient killing machine as possible. What's wrong with that? I hope I never have to use it as such, and in past experiences I have gone well out of my way to preserve life and avoid confrontation, but that doesn't change the possibility of it being required in the future.

so you are OK with what happened to Sean Taylor? guns today are so much more accessible our country needs some sort of regulation on them

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

so you are OK with what happened to Sean Taylor? guns today are so much more accessible our country needs some sort of regulation on them

We do have regulations on fire arms its just people like the one who shot ST don't buy gun legally. We also have laws about breaking and entering and did that stop them?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

im not sure about your analogy? ones a driving machine. the others sole intent is killing. there is a helluva difference

More people die in the US from car crashes and guns sole intent is not killing.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by dmek25

so you are OK with what happened to Sean Taylor? guns today are so much more accessible our country needs some sort of regulation on them

Can you point me to where I said what happened to Sean Taylor was okay? I never stated that or anything remotely close to that as far as I am aware, but if you have a link, by all means let me know.

I specifically said I have zero problem with guns being used to kill the evil to protect the innocent, not that I have no problem with ANYone being killed with a gun. Guns are an effective mechanism of taking a life, and I am all for taking the lives of those who would do me or my loved ones harm.

Guns are less accessible today than at any point in history since their inception, yet we have more crime than ever. What might that tell us?

Guns are already supposedly "inaccessible" to criminals and people with criminal records. We need to be a lot harsher about the dealing with the people who are violating the laws already in place, not just start making new ones.

When I was a cop, we'd do our damnedest to get Federal gun charges on the punks that we'd find with guns. Federal charges were the only ones that were any kind of real punishment that they'd be afraid of, state and local charges were a complete joke as the criminals knew damn well that the state charges would be plead down, dropped, they'd get probation, or at the very worst serve a sentence that would have them out in no time on parole. Not so with Federal charges.

About 5-8 years ago the department I worked for spent about 3 years working on a local gang and getting Federal charges on almost all of the leaders. There's now about 15-20 hardened criminals serving Federal sentences of upwards of 30 years with no hope for parole. THAT is how you handle criminals with guns, not these laughing stock state charges.

I'd have to dig up the link, but somewhere around 80% of firearms used in crimes are purchased on the black market or borrowed/taken/stolen from a friend or family member.

A very small minority of guns used in crimes are legally purchased.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by firstdown

More people die in the US from car crashes and guns sole intent is not killing.

I'd take issue with you there, even though I think we're coming from the same side of this debate.

The primary purpose of a firearm is to take a life (animal or human). That's what it was made to do, that's why it exists.

Yes, there are "target shooting" firearms, but let's be realistic and admit that the sole reason guns exist is not for the fun of plinking a few soda cans or target shooting. It's to take life.

I see no reason to equivocate or argue about that, and I have no problem with it. It's not something that needs to be defended, it's simple fact.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by firstdown

We do have regulations on fire arms its just people like the one who shot ST don't buy gun legally. We also have laws about breaking and entering and did that stop them?

Laws rarely stop anyone, they just provide consequences when someone breaks said law and gets caught. It's a means of punishment for the most part, not determent or prevention

The real point is that an out and out ban on firearms will only take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens - the criminals will continue to get them.

Doesn't mean we can't have appropriate, sensible laws to punish those who use firearms with malicious intent.