WTF Is Wrong With America And Gun Control?
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
- Status
Greenfinger53
Active Member
Home defence, what a fucking joke. I understand that you may have more rapists or violence over the pond but don't pretend you have a gun for protection. If the shit hits the fan you've more chance of killing yourself or an innocent bystander than the criminal you are looking forward to putting a bullet in.
Buy a house alarm and lock your doors, if somebody breaks in and steals your laptop and tv claim another on your house insurance, don't fucking kill him/her.
Buy a house alarm and lock your doors, if somebody breaks in and steals your laptop and tv claim another on your house insurance, don't fucking kill him/her.
What if I aim for the leg, but not like the femoral artery, just deep tissue?
Someone breaks into my house, when I am home, they will be needing medical attention.
My guns each have a specific purpose.
Not just home defense, against burglars.
Edit:. The town I live in has no police force, no hospital and 2 grave yards. Help is 30 mins away, if they drive 90mph. Unless a State'er or Sheriff just happens to be driving by.
Someone breaks into my house, when I am home, they will be needing medical attention.
My guns each have a specific purpose.
Not just home defense, against burglars.
Edit:. The town I live in has no police force, no hospital and 2 grave yards. Help is 30 mins away, if they drive 90mph. Unless a State'er or Sheriff just happens to be driving by.
Last edited:
self defence is a paramount right. woman, the elderly, physically handicapped, even the most physically fit person can be the victim of assault, muggings armed robbery rape and the like. robbery isn't just about sneaking in and taking a laptop, not sure if they have crystal meth where you're from but home invasions are real. Tying up and attacking occupants. Junkies do some real wild things, few cases in my state alone lately of elderly people being tied up and assaulted in their own homes.
Police solve crimes they seldom stop them! Rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6 rings true for me on that one. The legal right to self defence goes up there with that home and contents insurance you mentioned. You don't want to have to use it ever, but there may come a time when you have to.
Greenfinger53
Active Member
It's like we live in a different dimension. My area has crack, heroin and meth problems but nobody carries a gun, a few replicas used for robbery butbthat about it.
Your country has serious problems with its police service, prison service, mental health service and a huge problem with prescription drugs and drug prohibition and racial tension entwined amongst all the other major issues.
I suppose that's why you use guns as a crutch to feel safe, if all the other problems were resolved would you still need a gun?
The village I grew up in had one unarmed police officer and we left the doors open at night.
Your country has serious problems with its police service, prison service, mental health service and a huge problem with prescription drugs and drug prohibition and racial tension entwined amongst all the other major issues.
I suppose that's why you use guns as a crutch to feel safe, if all the other problems were resolved would you still need a gun?
The village I grew up in had one unarmed police officer and we left the doors open at night.
My folks put me in the boyscouts as a kid. "Always be prepared" was engraved in my mind at a young age and it stuck. In my twisted world, that means be prepared for anything.
I have already posted my thoughts in here on this subject, so no need to repeat myself over again.
Edit, not trying to avoid your question or be rude,. It's a touchy subject for many on both sides. But search my posts in here and ask again, if you feel the need.
I am not sure why I first posted this morning actually.
Last edited:
gangababa
Well-Known Member
It is true that some of us live in places that can be described as said above,
"The town I live in has no police force, no hospital and 2 grave yards. Help is 30 mins away, if they drive 90mph."
Those in the USA living rural are not wrong to own guns.
Those who want guns may be wrong in denying the urban of us, the right to self-protection by laws attempting to reduce the number of guns deaths in our neighborhoods.
The NRA promotes propaganda to pressure USA policies, powered by foreign gun-manufacturers' money, pushing the best interests of gunners, not bleeders.
But we are told, an armed society is a polite society! So who was impolite in this urban story?
Man murdered for not holding door open for a woman at McDonald's.
“Wait — aren’t there other ways foreign money leads to access and influence? Aren’t there groups who can accept foreign contributions, and then support campaigns and candidates?” It took me about two minutes to think of the most likely example of this: The National Rifle Association. Then it took me another two minutes of googling to find out from Mother Jones that 46% of contributions to the NRA came from foreign manufacturers"
Full disclosure, I once lived 75 miles from the nearest mall or McDonald's.
"The town I live in has no police force, no hospital and 2 grave yards. Help is 30 mins away, if they drive 90mph."
Those in the USA living rural are not wrong to own guns.
Those who want guns may be wrong in denying the urban of us, the right to self-protection by laws attempting to reduce the number of guns deaths in our neighborhoods.
The NRA promotes propaganda to pressure USA policies, powered by foreign gun-manufacturers' money, pushing the best interests of gunners, not bleeders.
But we are told, an armed society is a polite society! So who was impolite in this urban story?
Man murdered for not holding door open for a woman at McDonald's.
“Wait — aren’t there other ways foreign money leads to access and influence? Aren’t there groups who can accept foreign contributions, and then support campaigns and candidates?” It took me about two minutes to think of the most likely example of this: The National Rifle Association. Then it took me another two minutes of googling to find out from Mother Jones that 46% of contributions to the NRA came from foreign manufacturers"
Full disclosure, I once lived 75 miles from the nearest mall or McDonald's.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
(AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty, File) Aug 31, 2016
A federal government ban on the sale of guns to medical marijuana card holders does not violate the 2nd Amendment, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.
The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applies to the nine Western states that fall under the court's jurisdiction, including California, Washington and Oregon.
It came in a lawsuit filed by S. Rowan Wilson, a Nevada woman who tried to buy a firearm in 2011 after obtaining a medical marijuana card.
The gun store refused, citing the federal rule on the sale of firearms to illegal drug users.
Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has told gun sellers they can assume a person with a medical marijuana card uses the drug.
The 9th Circuit in its 3-0 decision agreed that it's reasonable for federal regulators to assume a medical marijuana card holder is more likely to use the drug.
In addition, a ban on the sale of guns to marijuana and other drug users is reasonable because the use of such drugs "raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated," Senior District Judge Jed Rakoff said.
The 9th Circuit also rejected other constitutional challenges to the ban that were raised by Wilson.
An email to Wilson's attorney was not immediately returned.
I don't agree with this but I thought it might be of some interest to our FC members.
CK
Edit
That's what I was thinking Vicki. All the crazy folks that get out there using their guns after they have been drinking alcohol all day.
Last edited:
flotntoke
thoroughly vaped
(AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty, File) Aug 31, 2016
A federal government ban on the sale of guns to medical marijuana card holders does not violate the 2nd Amendment, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.
The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applies to the nine Western states that fall under the court's jurisdiction, including California, Washington and Oregon.
It came in a lawsuit filed by S. Rowan Wilson, a Nevada woman who tried to buy a firearm in 2011 after obtaining a medical marijuana card.
The gun store refused, citing the federal rule on the sale of firearms to illegal drug users.
Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has told gun sellers they can assume a person with a medical marijuana card uses the drug.
The 9th Circuit in its 3-0 decision agreed that it's reasonable for federal regulators to assume a medical marijuana card holder is more likely to use the drug.
In addition, a ban on the sale of guns to marijuana and other drug users is reasonable because the use of such drugs "raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated," Senior District Judge Jed Rakoff said.
The 9th Circuit also rejected other constitutional challenges to the ban that were raised by Wilson.
An email to Wilson's attorney was not immediately returned.
I don't agree with this but I thought it might be of some interest to our FC members.
CK
WTF?!?!?
Vicki
Herbal Alchemist
(AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty, File) Aug 31, 2016
A federal government ban on the sale of guns to medical marijuana card holders does not violate the 2nd Amendment, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.
The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applies to the nine Western states that fall under the court's jurisdiction, including California, Washington and Oregon.
It came in a lawsuit filed by S. Rowan Wilson, a Nevada woman who tried to buy a firearm in 2011 after obtaining a medical marijuana card.
The gun store refused, citing the federal rule on the sale of firearms to illegal drug users.
Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has told gun sellers they can assume a person with a medical marijuana card uses the drug.
The 9th Circuit in its 3-0 decision agreed that it's reasonable for federal regulators to assume a medical marijuana card holder is more likely to use the drug.
In addition, a ban on the sale of guns to marijuana and other drug users is reasonable because the use of such drugs "raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated," Senior District Judge Jed Rakoff said.
The 9th Circuit also rejected other constitutional challenges to the ban that were raised by Wilson.
An email to Wilson's attorney was not immediately returned.
I don't agree with this but I thought it might be of some interest to our FC members.
CK
That's bullshit! People who use alcohol and use firearms are more dangerous!
gangababa
Well-Known Member
I am sure the NRA will be all over this travesty of the 2nd amendment right of gun makers to sell you a gun.
After all the NRA was right there in California when the state restricted these peoples' 2nd amendment rights. Oh, right, that never happened.
Don't know if this was targeted at me, but I'm not American.
WAR ON DRUGS, PROVERTY, RACIAL TENSION. This is what leads to American murder rates, firearm laws seem to be a variable with little impact on the overall issue. Blaming inanimate objects for societies problems is lazy.
Vicki
Herbal Alchemist
I am sure the NRA will be all over this travesty of the 2nd amendment right of gun makers to sell you a gun.
After all the NRA was right there in California when the state restricted these peoples' 2nd amendment rights. Oh, right, that never happened.
I wasnt trying to speak on restriction of guns. I was pointing out how stupid it is for a impaired/drunk person to be shooting a gun compared to someone who vaped some cannabis.
Farid
Well-Known Member
(AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty, File) Aug 31, 2016
A federal government ban on the sale of guns to medical marijuana card holders does not violate the 2nd Amendment, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.
Can't say I'm surprised. When people say "we need regulation" but don't specify exactly what kind of regulation, this is the first kind that gets passed. Be careful what you support.
grokit
well-worn member
Along those lines...
Should medical marijuana card holders have the right to buy a gun?
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling, finding that preventing medical marijuana users from buying a gun does not violate the Second Amendment.
Preventing medical marijuana card holders from obtaining firearms does not violate the Second Amendment, a federal court of appeals said Wednesday, rejecting a challenge to a federal ban preventing card holders from purchasing firearms.
The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Nevada resident S. Rowan Wilson after she was turned away by a firearms dealer who knew she had a medical marijuana card. Ms. Wilson, who says she obtained the card as a sign of support for legalizing marijuana, but does not use it herself, challenged a directive from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives instructing dealers not to sell firearms to card holders.
"It seems like the court did not foreclose the possibility of a challenge by actual medical marijuana users that they shouldn't be lumped with other drug users in terms of concerns about violence," marijuana law expert Alex Kreit, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, told the Associated Press.
more:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...uana-card-holders-have-the-right-to-buy-a-gun
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I thought this was funny on Stephen Colbert last night. I was listening to the hearings for the new admin. not trying to create controversy just wanted to show this. It fits in the gun control thread. This probably will be the new Sec of Education. We don't want to turn this into politics though. I don't want this to get shut down.
Stephen Colbert Found Footage of the Grizzly Attacks Betsy Devos Was Talking About - Esquire
Esquire › news-politics › videos › colbert...
11 hours ago - When Education Secretary nominee Betsy DeVos said there should be guns in schools because of grizzly bear attacks during her Senate hearing this week, it was one of many indications she is ...
Stephen Colbert Found Footage of the Grizzly Attacks Betsy Devos Was Talking About - Esquire
Esquire › news-politics › videos › colbert...
11 hours ago - When Education Secretary nominee Betsy DeVos said there should be guns in schools because of grizzly bear attacks during her Senate hearing this week, it was one of many indications she is ...
Last edited:
HellsWindStaff
Dharma Initiate
That was funny 
but the whole grizzly bears thing is again liberal media spinning a story out of nothing.
It doesn't sound as outlandish saying that they should have a gun to deal with the grizzly bears whenever she is referencing another Senator who in the meeting earlier talked about a school in his state (I believe Wyoming??? On mobile will check later) having to build a chain fence to keep grizzly bears out of their school.
If your news left that bit out, ask why? Fake news! Sad!
This is seriously though a great example of the overt bias on social media/news/entertainment
but the whole grizzly bears thing is again liberal media spinning a story out of nothing.It doesn't sound as outlandish saying that they should have a gun to deal with the grizzly bears whenever she is referencing another Senator who in the meeting earlier talked about a school in his state (I believe Wyoming??? On mobile will check later) having to build a chain fence to keep grizzly bears out of their school.
If your news left that bit out, ask why? Fake news! Sad!
This is seriously though a great example of the overt bias on social media/news/entertainment
OF
Well-Known Member
While I understand your POV here, as I said earlier on in this thread I don't think either you or I have the moral right to make that decision for someone who believes it's the best plan for them. A single mother living in fear faces threats I don't pretend to understand. If you don't like guns, don't get one?
But you want that single mother to live in more fear for her family? Her comfort is genuine I think, as are her fears.
As to your assertion about risk, you are spectacularly wrong from a statistical POV. Good guys shoot bad guys trying to do them hard something like seven times more often than the cops. Do you suggest not arming the police? Cops are usually not at the scene of the crime, victims always are. And as I recall most 'successful self defenses' with a gun don't involve shooting at all. So you're more likely to scare the bad guy off than shoot anyone or anything?
When rapes became really popular in Florida in the last century, women responded by training and packing against 'expert advice'. The problem went away. I guess getting shot takes a lot of fun out of rape? In fact, bad guys switched to targeting cars with out of state plates in general since the chances of guns on board were so much less. The HCI bunch (back then they pretended it was only handguns they wanted.......) ranted and raved that this would bring "The Gun Shine State" nothing but grief and death (a play on 'Sunshine State'). Only it didn't get worse, it got better.
In the end it's probably not really what you and I think about it, it's what the bad guys do? Guys interviewed in stir fear being shot by citizens WAY more than cops. Four to one IIRC. The trust cops to play by the rules which they know how to game, scared citizens not so much. Something like 80% of reported passing on a 'job' fearing an armed victim.
OF
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
40 years ago we left our doors unlocked during the day but things have changed. I agree the U.S has a drug problem but that's a whole different thread and probably one of the reasons we can't leave our homes unlocked. We have a huge heroin problem but that's just not the U.S. drugs such as crack and heroin are an equal oppertunity destroyer.
There won't be any federal restrictions on guns for a long time. A gun collectors paradise.
@OF If I lived in an isolated area somewhere and was left alone I might want ro learn how to shoot a gun and have one available. I would have to get past the fear of a gun.
We had a friend that lived in a rural area and he and his wife were shot and killed. I understand needing to protect ourselves against those wishing to harm us. My main fear would be, I would freeze then the gun would be taken away.
Last edited:
OF
Well-Known Member
Training gentle Lady, training has to go with it. And proper frame of mind of course. You need a plan as well as the tool, you're not about to think of new stuff at 3 AM when you hear breaking glass.
Simply buying a guitar doesn't make you a musician, nor owning a hammer make you a carpenter. Fortunately, competence with a handgun is much easier to achieve, and the skill set 'stays with you' much longer. Easier and faster with a revolver (as opposed to a pistol), but most any average adult can be taught to safely own and use a handgun in 'a day at the range' using the NRA guidelines (I've done so well over 100 times).
Better still, get a shotgun. Cheaper, easier to use, much more lethal. No good for carry/concealment of course. With proper tactics one shot and the war is over. Easier to retain (harder for the drug addict in your living room to take away. Notice the cops grab theirs at the first sign of trouble? Makes a handy club as well. This is serious stuff, requiring serious consideration and planning before the fact. If you lack the will to take a life if the need be, or the confidence you can reliably make a big old hole right over there, you are wise to not buy one. It's not a magic talisman, it's a specialized reliable tool with no will of it's own.
From my experience such training is truly empowering (unlike so many things claimed to be), it gives you choices. You decide if it's good for you like with vapes? But like there, it should be an informed choice I think.
For a fun (and sexist) perspective I'll maintain I can teach any woman to shoot better and faster at this level than any man. Confirmed over a lot of experience teaching 'Basic Handgun Safety and Marksmanship' for the local Club over the years. Men and women really are different (as are adults and children FWIW, who learn by rote rather than building advanced skills in steps like adults) when it comes to this. Women are serious about learning. They pay their hard earned money, give you a day of their valuable time and come to learn. Be honest and respectful, stick to the NRA drill and they will follow directions to success. Men have watched too much TV, BS'd with their buds too much, they have wrong ideas they insist on trying out one after the other. By the time they get around to "sight picture and trigger control" they're out of ammo and daylight. I've seen wives pack 'em in the black while hubby down the line (NRA says always split couples) is still spraying the countryside with rotten technique. I'd tell every class that's what will happen, husbands will end up doing the dishes, but it doesn't change it. Men still know better, ask 'em.
And you should get such training from a proper instructor whenever possible, not a friend or relative. The NRA has this part wired down tight.
Women will trust you one time if you do it right. Give them the right lessons they will go from success to success and rule the day. Every time, trust me I've been there. Tell them what they want to know, be honest and respectful doing so, never lie and you can't stop them. Guys have stuff to work out, it often takes more time and effort. Sometimes it ain't happening.
If I were a bad guy I'd steer way clear of an armed, trained woman defending her own at any cost. "Mother Grizzly' effect not withstanding. They are much more likely to have invested time and money in a defense plan and are, IMO, much more likely to deliver an effective shot on demand. No macho involved, just results.
Your call, but my advice is a gun and training are a package. Treat them as such. And have the 'right' mindset of course. But that comes with experience and confidence follows.
Your call, of course. You can live in fear or (try) to take charge of your destiny.
OF
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Diggy Smalls
Notorious
Gun control talk seems to always come around to disparaging people with mental illness, as though everyone with mental illness is violent. And everyone knows sane people would never do something wrong with a gun.
I personally challenge the very "right" we Americans have to possess a gun. You don't have the right for clean water, but you have the right to own firearms!
Guns have legitimate uses in society, but do you think NYC wood be safer with everyone packing heat? Lol maybe Owensville works that way.
Anyways, gun control talk also seems to bring up talk of revolting against the tyranny of the unjust government.
Ooh yeah, why do I never see gun advocates clamoring for the freedom of black Americans to have guns? Or middle Eastern Americans? It sounds like a conservative nightmare.... Imagine all the brown skinned people carrying guns... How do you tell who's a terrorist?
OK off to work I go.
I personally challenge the very "right" we Americans have to possess a gun. You don't have the right for clean water, but you have the right to own firearms!
Guns have legitimate uses in society, but do you think NYC wood be safer with everyone packing heat? Lol maybe Owensville works that way.
Anyways, gun control talk also seems to bring up talk of revolting against the tyranny of the unjust government.
Ooh yeah, why do I never see gun advocates clamoring for the freedom of black Americans to have guns? Or middle Eastern Americans? It sounds like a conservative nightmare.... Imagine all the brown skinned people carrying guns... How do you tell who's a terrorist?
OK off to work I go.
OF
Well-Known Member
A factor for sure, but actually many handguns actually cause more 'impulse damage', strange as that might sound? The pressure in a shotgun is much lower (but the bore bigger) when the muzzle blast comes, in fact it's much lower from the start (shotgun walls are thin, can't take the pressure like centerfires). It 'booms' more but the report is less sharp. In actual use, citizens (and cops) often report 'getting in the zone' and not even hearing the report. Typically folks can't reliably recall precisely how many shots even. Natural instincts take over it seems?
I've accidentally fired a first shot after target change 'without ears' in a steel plate indoor range. No mistaking the mistake. Still, while painful and providing brief effect (a day or so, like after a loud rock concert), not much past embarrassment happened. The problem was evident as was the fix. I also was next to some fool who signed in, ran his target out in the cease fire, and before anyone could notice, let alone stop him he cranked 3 round of .45 Auto off rapid fire (also not allowed.....). They asked him to leave.
Hearing damage in such cases is cumulative. Over long time. Go to an NRA convention and watch the old men shouting at each other. It took many years and thousands of shots to do that. A couple, while to be avoided, is not very damaging (defies measure in one article I read 'back when').
Suppressors are a bust in my state, we can't be trusted with them. Exceptions for the cops of course, and those that sell to them, but you go to jail in California for otherwise legal ownership. And you go to jail anywhere if you don't register it and pay the $200 fee after passing the investigation. Same basic deal as the permit for a machine gun, actually. We have some very nasty laws left over in this area. Guys have gone to jail over a 2 liter soda bottle taped over the muzzle. Shoot a bad guy in your living room and you could well end up in very serious trouble. Not to mention his lawyer claiming you were obviously intending to shoot his poor client who was only trying to feed his kids. You could lose your house, bullet hole and blood stains and all. Like that special bullet your brother in law gave you 'just in case'. Best advice is 'use what the cops use', juries understand that. Nothing special, such is lawyer bait.
IMO a valid concern but when push comes to shove I suggest protecting your family in the best way available is a good compromise with the ringing in your ears the next day? With any luck it will be louder and more memorable for the scumbag in your house looking to harm love ones or to take your stuff to swap for a fix.
I know a guy who cannot own a gun (past disagreement with the heat). He lives in a sketchy neighborhood (go figure) and keeps both a baseball bat and serious sword behind the bedroom door. He practices with the sword a fair bit, I sure wouldn't want to be in the same room with him if he's angry, but that 'bark over here, bite over there' of a gun trumps his options. He's still miles better than the guy with no plan at all.
You should also incorporate this with your fire safety plan. You should consider, before hand, possible escape routes (windows, doors, etc) available in an emergency and a meeting place a short distance away. If you yell 'fire' in the middle of the night, the family should be trained to immediately flee and rendezvous as planned. You sure don't want them downrange when the loud part starts?
And important decision for sure, and like all such should be an educated one. The safety and peach of mind (not to mention the increased self reliance) are there potentially, but it takes an adult owner to by effective.
The NRA magazine publishes a dozen or so such stories each month of "Armed Citizens" successfully using legal guns to defend themselves. Fun reading in a way, informative IMO and gives a good perspective of the real world:
https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/
I think your first point has merit, but suggest the guys you really need fear are packing illegally? Bad guys don't generally follow the laws......... The only folks you disarm by law are already law abiding.
The second is WAY off base historically. Do you know where the first (anti) gun laws came from? Fear of newly liberated slaves, yes, the Democrats voted them in in the South specifically as a race issue. Nothing to be proud of, but facts are facts. Responsible gun owners didn't do this, in fact we fight it to this day. You do us a great disservice by inferring we're that racist today. IMO you should check your facts before branding those whom you don't agree with as racists......popular as that seems to have become. Minorities need the same protection, probably more on average? And all citizens have the same rights. And lets be clear here, this is a right not a privilege. There's a huge difference, really, even if schools no longer teach the young the distinction? Like freedom of religion.
"Saturday Night Special" laws are racist (or class based) IMO. As were the first Democrat bans in the south in Reconstruction. They too were based on cost, make guns too expensive for the rabble. And this also explains why we here in California have such restrictive knife laws to this day (no dirks, switchblades over 2 inches, etc).......we had Mexicans to fear you see.....and they carry knives, everyone knows that..... That was then, now is different I think.
Due to the area I live in well over half the students I taught were minority or women. Often both. We're talking 10 or so per class, a class a month, for several years. Good folks of all stripes and colors. Our club, as is with the NRA, is not 'restricted'. There's no box for race on the applications.......
Yes, I fully support law abiding citizens of appropriate age owning firearms without considering how they fit in society past that. It is their RIGHT, I've no business trying to limit it. I sure don't want them trying to tell me what to do in this area, so the Golden Rule rules?
Fun stuff, regards to all.
OF
- Status