DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... President Obama, before you try that gun grab, I have a WARNING for you…

Any street legal Auto.....of course after Joe driver takes a couple tests. Gets a license. Registers the car and get's the car and himself insured encase of accidents or theft.

Joe gun owner won't have to take any tests, register any guns or get insurance on himself or the guns encase of accidents or theft.

How about due to the simple fact that just like AR15 (and guns in general) the overwhelming majority of the people who have these sports cars DON'T drive like a-holes and they DON'T kill people.

You want to restrict people based upon what they could do, not what they've done. The problem with this way of thinking is that it is way too subjective. You said to put a restrictor on cars, having them top out at 70, 75, or 80mph... why those numbers? Why not go back to 55mph?

Be careful about giving the gov't power to control and take away freedoms based upon your own personal belief about what some other person "needs" because it's not pretty when it's someone else's opinion taking away yours.

well, i've laid out my criteria of who should be allowed to own weapons, and who shouldn't.

i never said i wanted a certain weapon banned. i dunno about everybody else.

and this is why the argument just doesn't hold any water.

for the most part, accidents aren't intentional. and the tool itself(the car) original purpose was never intended to kill anybody.

sorry but i'll never understand the comparisons you guys try to pull because it isn't the same.

also, it's a lot harder to get a license AND a car than it is a gun.

funny how the a tool intended for murder is easy as hell to get, yet a tool that pretty much most americans can make the case for more importance is harder to get.

so if it's easy to get a gun, and you guys like it that way, because it's a 2nd amendment, then aren't you guys advocating against voter ID laws?

are you saying that one right is more important to another? according to who?

why aren't you guys advocating for civil forfeiture laws to be removed? like actively? i guess the 4th amendment isn't all that important, right?

i just want to understand why you guys place one right as more important over the other.

but then i thought about it, and i answered my own question. it's actually not surprising, cause yall do the same thing with the bible and sin. so of course that imbalance is gonna affect other parts of your life.

and back to square one, cause you guys aren't doing a good job at all of convincing.

comparing cars and guns?

At least Tulsa said "Deaths are deaths" and we must do whatever to prevent it.

but that's not the argument yall are presenting.

or, another argument.

regardless of what you believe, at the end of the day, abortion is legal.

yet why are states allowed to make women wait at least 24 hours before performing the operation?

yet i can get a weapon same day service? when i bought my weapon, i stood around for a few hours til i was all good.

are you saying, whether you agree with abortion or not, that one's rights is more important than another?

that's why i said this all the time: i'm for the 2nd amendment, but when you guys start making your arguments, thats when i start questioning it. cause it aint lining up.

All I want is some consistency.

I'm not trying to sound stupid here, but you suppress mental instability by just freaking speaking out. People are born with it, and there's nothing as of yet to correct it or even catch it. Too many times I hear "oh I thought he had some issues" and "oh, I knew he was ..." and etc. Speak out, speak up and get people the help they need before it escalates.

In addition, schools needs to intervene more. Parenting seems to be non-existent these days. I know every parent thinks "their baby" is incapable of such, but waiting until something happens and then responding to the hunches leaves hundreds slaughtered, most cases including their own child or whatever.

I have no definitive answers, but it's the things we should be discussing was my point. Not freaking car accidents and etc. JMO.

j/c

I believe someone posted a statistic that 37,000 people die each year in automobile accidents, with many, many more, injured.

I believe the death number from guns is 32,000 (although Chicago is trying hard to raise that number).

Of the gun deaths, it's widely reported that suicide accounts for 63% of the gun deaths.

Just throwing that out there. Could the numbers be wrong? Possibly - I'm going off of memory.

That girl sure knew how to turn a phrase, didn't she?

With intentionally cheaper azz cars being made, I can believe it.

A native from Chicago can feel free to correct me, but the deadly spots are Englewood, Garfield Park, and Austin right?

Yep, proves my point. Limit the magazine to 10 and require a double action to release it and load another.

That's not much of a point.

Takes all of 1/2 a second to rack the slide.

Question, are there any laws prohibiting certain (criminals, mentally ill, etc.) people from being trained to use guns? I know it may seem small, but I think it's something that should be implemented.

I am all for a ban on AR-15's used while texting, driving, and speeding all at the same time.

First of all, let's start with the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right, where abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Secondly, a abortion will end a life, where the purchase of a gun will probably not. I've had my guns for years, and I've never used them to take a life. At least 50% do not survive an abortion.

How about this. Pistols are by far the most used weapon that kill average americans either intentionally or by accident. Intentionally we'll never get rid of, if someone wants you dead chances are really good they'll find a way to get you there. What about the accidental shootings, the lady in the car shot by her kid or any kid picking up a hand gun and killing themselves or friends.

Make all pistols double action, hammered fired and give them at least a 12lb to 15lb pull. The three gun tournament people would hate it but you can have special provisions for striker fired with light triggers to be legally owned for tournament use.

It's also an amendment.

Should I post the definition of amendment?

Abortion is a right, as well.

Also, a guns sole purpose is to kill/neutralize an intended target, whether it's for offensive or defensive purposes is irrelevant.

So you're saying someone should be free to kill someone under the right circumstances, but a woman's right to an abortion is less important?

This is why I hardly listen to anything you have to say.

I don't want restrictions on types of guns. I personally think it's dumb.

I want restrictions on the type of people who can own them. I.E: the dumbasses who kids ends up shooting themselves or others.

You can't control dumbasses just like you can't fix stupid. You can make firearms safer but that's you're only hope to do anything that might help. Otherwise you're trying to bring the government into play on deciding who is and isn't dumb, remembering this is the same government who thought selling AR's to the Mexican cartels was a good idea.

I understand that. I also understand the governments intention on that even though it failed, miserably.

However, at least preventing dumbasses from owning guns after they already screwed up helps prevent future idiocy, if even a little bit.

If my kids shoots themselves by accident, my right should be taken away, because there's a good chance that crap will happen again, because I've proved to society I'm not a responsibile gun owner.

And look bro, I'm all for better safeties on guns. It's extremely difficult I'm GUESSING, but if they was a way to have finger print technology on guns while being cost effective, I'm all for it.

Just for example.

That is my point. The way they are currently designed, they can be changed in half a second. Requiring a double action to remove and replace would require that the person take time.

If I recall the Gabby Giffords shooter messed up when trying to change magazines. That allowed him to be tackled.

What's cost effective? You're adding most probably hundreds of dollars cost to the weapon, electronics and a power source and an increase in weight and size, it's simply not practical. We already have what I'm talking about and small children won't be able to operate them.

Please feel free to show me the abortion amendment to the Constitution at any time.

A gun's sole purpose is not to kill. It can be used to scare or wound also. An encounter with an armed person does not always end in death. An encounter between a baby and an abortion doctor almost always does end in a death, with very few exceptions.

Please read up on the 2nd Amendment again. It merely states the right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing about how they are to be used.

If you feels that's better, then ok. What I'm saying is that just like everything else, once the tech is developed, over time it becomes cheaper and cheaper. I mean cameras use to be huge. Now there cameras as small as a button.

I'm sure overtime the tech could be so cheap and small that's it's literally ran by a watch battery.

I'm just spit balling, bro.

So ifs it's not in the constitution, it's not legal?

Lol. Ok man.

I'm not the one that said it was an amendment, you are. I never said anything about it not being legal. Now please read your own definition of an amendment and please let me know if you have any semblance of what you were talking about. Laugh away.

I'm laughing because you're once again acting as if an amendment can't be changed.


Also, it's sad you don't understand the history behind the development of the gun. It was design to kill/neutralize a target.

What's also sad is you're the one who clearly can't read.

You said "scare/wound".

Thanks for agreeing with me, as that's what neutralizing is. Jeez dude, take this L

Cause now I'm wondering, on top of everything else, if you even know how to shoot a weapon properly.

I doubt you even know what you're doing, because you're not making a lick of sense in any of your points.

I gotcha bud, we're just tossing out ideas that may or may not help with these issues but at least we're trying.

One thing I always thought about is training requirements.

Like...I dunno if it's useful for pistols and shotguns.

But more of a training course for rifles. Just to certify that you understand safety, storage, and basic functions of the weapons.

And I wouldn't even make it mandatory at the time of purchase. Maybe a 1-2 week course an hour a day within a 6 month time frame of purchase.

These arguments with you keep getting more stupid. Yes, I missed the word neutralize, but it's probably due to the fact that you have said on many occasions that a gun's sole purpose is to kill. You got me on that one. Please feel free to pat yourself on the back for the majority of the day.

I find it odd that you take that idea that I missed a word to believing I don't know how to shoot properly. I don't know what military rating I would get, but I know I can hit what I aim at. That goes for guns, throwing knives, and darts. I prefer a hand gun, because my vision gets poor with longer distances, and there are no long distance ranges in my area. If I'm to defend my home, I'm using my pump shotgun anyway. Even cops miss on 8 of 10 shots on average.

As for gun history, what do you want to know? I don't have all the dates in my head, but I can pretty much tell you how they developed from the Chinese wooden barrels that shot rocket arrows to early cannons made of wood with iron bindings. Matchlocks to wheellocks to flintlocks to pin guns, smooth bores to rifled bores. I can tell you that one of the reasons there were so many casualties in the Civil War is because they were fighting a short range war with long range weapons, and still lining up like armies would have 50 years before.

Firearms history is what refutes the argument by the left that our founding fathers never intended guns to have more that one shot before reloading. Seeing as the first 'machine gun' was invented in 1721, they had to know handguns would get to that level also.

The arguments get more stupid to you because you keep losing. I'd claim they was dumb too if I was getting hammered over and over again.

Who said anything about us lefties only wanting one single fire shot? You're taking a very vague and minor argument some use and decided that applied to all of us?

You realize you're arguing with a leftie, right? That completely invalidates your argument dude.

But whatever. I'm not even surprised anymore. You're grasping at anything at this point. Continue on, while I continue trying to find productive ways to make our country a better place.

No, the arguments get stupid because you can never stay on track. You put words in other peoples mouths and make assumptions, like I can't shoot a gun and know nothing about the history of guns, as a way to try to discredit people. Just like I said earlier, show me the amendment. There is a big difference between an amendment and a right. The Bill of Rights give us the rights of what the government can't do to us. The following amendments fix parts of the original Constitution, like slavery, women's right to vote, alcohol, etc. Even lefties like you see the need for the 2nd (by the way, it's obvious you were a lefty from your first post).

As for your 'invalidations', it must be nice to declare victory all the time. Do you really feel like you win them all?

No, but against you? You specifically? More often than not, yes.

I stay on track, but since you're spinning and dodging, I'm just hitting st at whatever angle you wish to choose.

Like now, you're making this about the left, while I've at least tried to make this as bipartisan as possible.

But all you do is blame the left on everything. So yea, it's easy to blast you, because you give me more than enough ammo.

I'm simply following your lead. I've talked about every single point, and now you're trying to weave you way into yet another discussion about right vs left.

You can't spin your way out of this one. Either discuss my points about weapon safety, ways to get irresponsible people from having guns, or kick rocks with your tired ass left vs right argument.

How does any of that change the mass shootings?

How does any of that change the 60-63% of shootings that are suicide and/or attempted suicide?

Or did this thread change into a "trying to prevent accidental shootings" thread.

Regardless, training is great. Not just for rifles though. For handguns and shotguns as well.

I'm guessing you, swish, have heard of the term "hang fire", right? You'd be surprised at the number of people that haven't.

Someone close to me just asked this week "I'm thinking of getting a gun, what kind should I get?"

My reply was fairly straight forward: What are you wanting to use it for? Hunting deer in Ohio? Shotgun. Home protection? Shotgun, or a Taurus Judge handgun. Carrying? blah blah blah. Just going to the range for fun/target practice?"

well, we disagree on the fact that you keep trying to separate the suicides from the overall gun violence.

gun violence is gun violence, regardless on which stats you try to focus on.

a person committing suicide is the same level of gun violence as an ex girlfriend pissed that her man broke up with her and slept with her sister.

thats point 1.

point 2 about the change of mass shootings. i've already discussed ways, such as the terror watch list, that we can try and prevent as much as possible.

also, for you to complain about the changing subjects in this thread, as if you weren't part of the same changing discussions pages ago, is hilarious, and hypocritical.

i think we have a population that doesn't respect the weapon as much as they should. i think training is just an overall quality of life thing. it's not really gonna stop anybody from shooting someone.

however, it does cut down on:

- making training mandatory, and understand the legality of keeping weapons locked(i want that legislation), makes people a little more conscious about how they leave their weapons lying around.

- cuts down on accidental shootings

- potentially prevents kids from taking their parents weapons and committing mass shootings.

so you might not like the answer, but those are valid reasonings why training is a good idea.

training, combined with that legislation of weapons safety and locks, acts as a deferment to irresponsible gun ownership.

for example. you go through the training. you understand what laws can be used against you if your weapon is improperly secured and someone else uses your gun to commit a crime.

more often than not, you're gonna make sure your weapon is secured when you leave the house. that way, if a criminal, or your kid, tries to steal your weapon, if it was locked up, you don't have anything to worry about as far as the law.

but if someone uses your unsecured weapon to commit any crime, you're also held liable.

i firmly believe that should be enforced.

remember, a portion of these mass shootings came from kids who got the weapon from their unknowing parents.

so that CAN change mass shootings.

also, isn't prevention the first step into anything?

I don't understand why you don't think it will change anything. obviously you think having a CCW protects you from possible criminal activity. isn't that in of itself a form of prevention?

i'll help you out: obviously it is.

there is no perfect system. but doing nothing is also wrong. these kinds of methods at least doesn't take away rights from responsible gun owners, nor does it limit what kind of gun you're allowed to buy on the market, like the common complaint people try to make it out to be.

also, another point about training.

since we like to link gun deaths with car accident/fatality rates around these boards.

There's a reason Germany has a better car accident rate than all but 4 of our states.

think about that. the entire country has less accidents per capita than all but 4 states.

why? because of the laws on the road, and their driver's training.

their drivers training is roooooouuugggh. and the laws, specifically on the authobahn, is not only strict, but heavily enforced.

now, i'm NOT advocating for these high prices, or an age requirement to 18, but my wife had to paid 1700 euro(at the time, 2200 dollars) for her drivers license.

the FASTEST you can get your license is 3 months, and thats if you go to drivers school every day. they also taught EMT courses, as you're legally required to stop at any accident you see and render aid. you had to have so many hours driving during the day, and so many hours driving at night.

anyway, long story short, people over there respect the roads. thats why when you see fatal accidents on the authobahn, it's big news in Germany, because it doesn't happen as often as you'd think.

so training works.

edit: just found the stats.

2012: they have 44 car deaths per million. the U.S. has 104 car deaths per million.

thats a huge difference, especially considering the autobahn has long stretches where you can literally drive as fast as your car will let you.

Yeah, I guess we disagree. If a person is hell bent on suicide, a gun may make it easier, but there are many, many ways not using a gun, to do it.


I can agree with that. However, I'd like to know who decides who's on a terror watch list. You'd probably like to know also.

It was a freaking question swish. A question. Your disdain for me oozes from you like a leaky faucet. Pathetic. Really. Just like you accused me of being drunk and/or on drugs just recently. Sad, man. Shows a bit about you I guess, though.

I'm not against training. You said for rifles. I said for rifles, handguns, and shotguns.

And, I have a feeling it wouldn't have to be a "gov't. training" thing. Millions of kids and even adults have learned about weapons from a parent, or a friend that has had years of gun experience. (part of the reason I brought up "hang fire")

Again, your suppositions about me are foolish. I can get on board with that.


Yes, and no. For family, or people that are invited to my home, absolutely yes. If someone breaks into my home and takes a gun - a gun that was locked up - no, I shouldn't bear any responsibility. Heck, if someone breaks into my locked home, they've already broken the law. Why would I be held accountable when my gun was locked in my house? They broke a lock to get it. Period.



Okay. So, like, if someone steals your locked truck, and causes an accident or kills someone, you should be held liable, right? After all, you could've done more than just lock your truck, right?

If my house is locked, my valuables are locked up. Right?

(and on a side note, my guns are locked up when I'm away - or, when WE are away. I do have one that isn't. But, it's unloaded. The magazines are locked up, and no ammo is available. I don't shoot it much, and it's in a different building.)


Yes. Off the top of my head, the Sandyhook shooting.

I'm not at all clear on what you are trying to say here.


Fair enough.

You have noticed that the gun argument is typically a left/right battle, haven't you? Republicans are usually backed by the NRA while the democrats are backed by anti-gun groups. We all know that not everyone on either side completely follows the leanings of their side, but that is the typical following. A lefty tends to not like guns, a righty does and believes in the 2nd Amendment. That's not spin, but fact.

As for training, to get this back on track, I think people should take training lessons on handling firearms of any type. They ought to offer lessons in public school, with parental approval, of course. I especially think people should get training if they have kids and guns in the house.

My first time firing a gun was when I was 6. My dad recently purchased a hand gun, and my brother and I were too curious about it. He had us hold the gun and told us the rules with the gun empty (don't put your finger on the trigger until ready to shoot, always point downrange, etc.), then loaded a single round and handed us the gun from behind us. He had warned me of recoil, but there is a huge difference between hearing about recoil and experiencing it. I wound up with the gun over my head, and I'm very sure with a look of shock on my face. His whole point in this lesson was to teach us that this gun was not a toy, and it would kill. I learned that very well that day. He had us watch him and his friend shoot holes in pumpkins for the rest of the time there. It's a lesson I never forgot. It's the same sort of lesson I taught my kids once I owned a gun.

Totally false statement.

It's not the guns they don't like. It's the righties that will allow people on the no fly list and every over mental lunatic in the U.S.A. to have unfettered access to any gun including certain military style assault weapons that they don't like.