MERGED--> all Gun Control discussion

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Could it be all the piling on?


The guy has a contrarian point of view.

One that actually leads to some discussion in here.

Do some people find that intolerable?


edit to add

This discussion board only works when the discussion is directed at "the ideas, opinions and beliefs expressed" and not at individual posters.

Yoland's response was very good, she addressed the 'idea or belief' put forth.
 
John, you say that but you just got finished writing:




After some of us told you our personal experience, you still proceed under your assumption that we don't know how we would feel if we were put in that situation.

You have become very assumptive and defensive the last couple of days and you've lost your normal calm collective reasonable means to discussing this subject. I have actually found you to be one of the few reasonable pro-gun debaters in FYM, but you come off a little rattled the last two days.


maybe cause im on my 13th workday in a row and still got at least 6 more to go :lol:

idk, sometimes it's hard to explain yourself properly in words. not to mention im a little outnumbered, as the other gun supporters on here dont seem to bring much to the table

although i think our views on the subject arent that much different.
 
John, in one of your earlier posts, you mentioned that you are in favour of gun control and more training for gun users (I didn't just imagine that, right?). Could you expand on that, and talk about what you'd like to see in place? Thanks. Did you see the 20/20 stuff I posted earlier? What do you think of reaction times in laypeople during crisis situations? Potentially dangerous, or nothing to worry about? In fact, I'm not sure if you've read the entire thread, but feel free to respond to any of my earlier questions in it.

I'm still following this thread. I dropped out because there really wasn't much willingness to discuss, till you arrived.
 
First off ill say i think it should be up to the individual states to make their own gun laws. Some states have lesser gun violence and guns are used more for hunting and sport. Strict federal policies would make it the same for everyone. Should states like North Dakota or Montana, where gun murders are extremely low and id imagine most of the guns are used for hunting, have the same gun controls as a state with high gun violence, like California?

As for the training, i think it's reasonable that if you have to pass a test to drive a car, you should have to pass a test of some kind to have an instrument to kill someone, if we are talking about handguns or "assault rifles" :yuck:. As for hunters there should be a mandatory hunters safety, which i think some places have already.

I dont think any dipshit should be allowed to go out and buy a gun without knowing how to handle it.

As far as what the test would include i think it should be similar to a drivers test. An evaluation to see if you are suitable to own a firearm. Background investigation (which they have now), maybe some sort of mental evaluation to make sure you arent getting it to just go blow a bunch of people away. If you pass the background then there should be a training course which would teach safety, proper handling, and profeciency. Then there would be a practical test in which you would have to demonstrate proper handling, safety, and show you can actually shoot accuratley by getting a certain score.

If you pass you'd get a card similiar to a driver license, which you would take to the gun dealer when you go to buy a gun. And to ensure you keep up with it, the cards would expire every so often and you'd have to re-qualify.

They could have different licenses or different training for different guns you wanted to get or they type of thing you wanted to do with it. For example if you were getting a shotgun for home defense, youd get training with the shotgun and a test on that. There could be different levels of licenses ranging from just being able to get hunting rifles to you can get anything you want. The more types of guns you want to get, the more training and tests you have to take.

I think the gun owners would like that because it's another day of shooting. And if you arent a criminal and are smart enough and responsible enough to own a gun than it should be no problem and if you are very familiar with guns than the test should be a breeze :D

This might seem obsurd to some, but i think something like this would be a good start. The next step would be getting the illegal guns out of the hands of the criminals. Because it doesnt make sense to make stricter controls on law-abiding citizens without working on getting guns obtained illegally away from the criminals. Maybe you'd have to have the license to get ammunition, so the criminals couldnt just waltz into walmart and get ammo.

Vintage, ill have to look over to see your previous posts. I cant watch videos or anything on this computer im on now.
 
They took people with little to no firearms experience (unlike most CCW holders) and put them against trained experts (unlike most school shooters). It was designed to fail, as if getting shot while trying to dial 911 is so much better.
 
They took people with little to no firearms experience (unlike most CCW holders) and put them against trained experts (unlike most school shooters). It was designed to fail, as if getting shot while trying to dial 911 is so much better.

Paranoid much?

I think you missed the point. What is the minimum training one needs to carry?

Now some of the profiles of these school shooters have been people obsessed with guns and had quite a bit of experience.
 
First off ill say i think it should be up to the individual states to make their own gun laws. Some states have lesser gun violence and guns are used more for hunting and sport. Strict federal policies would make it the same for everyone. Should states like North Dakota or Montana, where gun murders are extremely low and id imagine most of the guns are used for hunting, have the same gun controls as a state with high gun violence, like California?

As for the training, i think it's reasonable that if you have to pass a test to drive a car, you should have to pass a test of some kind to have an instrument to kill someone, if we are talking about handguns or "assault rifles" :yuck:. As for hunters there should be a mandatory hunters safety, which i think some places have already.

I dont think any dipshit should be allowed to go out and buy a gun without knowing how to handle it.

As far as what the test would include i think it should be similar to a drivers test. An evaluation to see if you are suitable to own a firearm. Background investigation (which they have now), maybe some sort of mental evaluation to make sure you arent getting it to just go blow a bunch of people away. If you pass the background then there should be a training course which would teach safety, proper handling, and profeciency. Then there would be a practical test in which you would have to demonstrate proper handling, safety, and show you can actually shoot accuratley by getting a certain score.

If you pass you'd get a card similiar to a driver license, which you would take to the gun dealer when you go to buy a gun. And to ensure you keep up with it, the cards would expire every so often and you'd have to re-qualify.

They could have different licenses or different training for different guns you wanted to get or they type of thing you wanted to do with it. For example if you were getting a shotgun for home defense, youd get training with the shotgun and a test on that. There could be different levels of licenses ranging from just being able to get hunting rifles to you can get anything you want. The more types of guns you want to get, the more training and tests you have to take.

I think the gun owners would like that because it's another day of shooting. And if you arent a criminal and are smart enough and responsible enough to own a gun than it should be no problem and if you are very familiar with guns than the test should be a breeze :D

This might seem obsurd to some, but i think something like this would be a good start. The next step would be getting the illegal guns out of the hands of the criminals. Because it doesnt make sense to make stricter controls on law-abiding citizens without working on getting guns obtained illegally away from the criminals.

Vintage, ill have to look over to see your previous posts. I cant watch videos or anything on this computer im on now.

I do not believe I would support all of your guide lines.



And most 2nd Amendment advocates would say your views are anti-2nd amendment.

Most of the anti-gun people (even on this board) should be happy to have a politician with your views in office.
 
oh im not anti-2nd amendment, i think we established that :lol:

it's an extremely complex issue. if you believe in the right to bear arms, yet support stronger gun control, how do you compromise between the two?

thats just an idea i came up with for stronger gun control, it doesnt have to be exactly like that, but i think there should be some form of training and a profeciency level needed to own a firearm.

i think that is reasonable (the training).
 
Paranoid much?

I think you missed the point. What is the minimum training one needs to carry?

Now some of the profiles of these school shooters have been people obsessed with guns and had quite a bit of experience.

I'm not the paranoid one that fears guns.
 
thats just an idea i came up with for stronger gun control, it doesnt have to be exactly like that, but i think there should be some form of training and a profeciency level needed to own a firearm.

i think that is reasonable (the training).

I am not saying it is unreasonable.

I just know how the NRA and politics works,
anything that is seen as limiting in anyway, gun ownership is fought tooth and nail and labled 'uncostitutional'.
 
I am not saying it is unreasonable.

I just know how the NRA and politics works,
anything that is seen as limiting in anyway, gun ownership is fought tooth and nail and labled 'uncostitutional'.

very true.

this shouldnt be about being unconstitutional and keeping law-abiding citizens from owning guns, it should be about making sure people know how to handle them and make sure they arent going to shoot themselves or someone else by mistake and that they arent a criminal or a psychopath.
 
thats just an idea i came up with for stronger gun control, it doesnt have to be exactly like that, but i think there should be some form of training and a profeciency level needed to own a firearm.

i think that is reasonable (the training).

I think all of that is very reasonable. :up:

The discussion of the 20/20 episode begins on this page and continues for a few: http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f199/merged-all-gun-control-discussion-196543-7.html

The classroom scenario that Hyper so strongly objects to was only part of the episode. The entire thing was really interesting, and somewhat frightening. But getting back to the classroom thing, the gist of it was to show how people with varying gun experience (from very little to considerable experience) react in a panic situation, and the results were not good. After that segment, they had police officers commenting that having guns for the purpose of personal protection in the hands of individuals who are not undergoing constant training is a very bad idea. They mentioned the many hours it takes them to get their skill level up, and also the hours they need to spend in order to maintain that skill. I'd take their word for it long before I'd listen to Hyper, but I was wondering how you see it, if you agree with them or not.
 
Based on your description of that id have to agree with the officers.

if you have a gun to use for personal protection, what good is it if you dont know how to use it? or cant shoot for shit? not only are you endangering yourself, but possibly bystanders or family (in the case of your home).

thats just common sense.

and speaking from personal experience, it takes MANY hours to get decent with a handgun. :lol:
 
Based on your description of that id have to agree with the officers.

if you have a gun to use for personal protection, what good is it if you dont know how to use it? or cant shoot for shit? not only are you endangering yourself, but possibly bystanders or family (in the case of your home).

thats just common sense.

That's exactly the point they were trying to make. In all of their "tests," I think only one person got a shot off that hit the shooter, and that was a glancing shot, nothing that would have stopped the shooter, probably. Several others weren't even able to unholster their guns. Others would have shot bystanders, or left themselves in the open while unholstering and pointing their weapons, and they would have easily been shot before they got a shot off, themselves. They would have had a better chance at survival and not shooting innocent bystanders by simply taking cover.

Are you okay with private citizens carrying hand guns in public? That freaks me the hell out.
 
Are you okay with private citizens carrying hand guns in public? That freaks me the hell out.

not if they have proper training and arent criminals or psychos.

i do it all the time. of course i'm a federal officer so thats a little different. :lol:
 
There is no legitimate reason for private citizens to own one let alone multiple guns. None. None.

Most people who own a gun for 'protection' don't know how to use it and are far more like to accidentally injure themselves/family/friends than to successfully protect themselves or anyone else.

I don't understand, and I never will understand, people that like to go hunting and shoot/kill innocent animals for sport/entertainment. They're certainly not doing it to feed themselves because they could go to any supermarket and buy their meat. And no, I'm not a vegetarian, so you might think that makes me a hypocrite - however, take into consideration that a)animals killed to be sold as food aren't killed with guns that much, there are other ways, b)it's a job for the people that do that, not a hobby, and c)people who hunt shoot lots of animals that humans don't eat regularly anyway.

I also don't understand, and I will never understand, parents who take their young children to firing ranges. If you're a parent, and you allow your eight year old to pick up a gun at one of those places and shoot it, my gut reaction - and yes this is probably a little over the top - is that your child should be taken from you and put in foster care. Accidental deaths have occurred because of such poor judgement exercised by parents in these types of scenarios. I realize that's extreme but I just can't fathom putting a gun in your child's hands and thinking it's ok.

The assault weapons ban should be brought back and never let go again. The gun show loophole should be fixed(the whole idea of a gun show in the first place seems kind of sick to me). Gun control as a whole should be tightened up ten-fold.

In my ideal world, only cops and military personnel would be allowed to legally own guns. There is NO legitimate reason for private citizens to own guns. The 2nd amendment is by far the most unnecessary in the bill of rights.
 
Yeah we can work on ridding ourselves of Free Speech next. Oppose that? Don't worry, the cops and military will have guns.
 
i am not too heavily invested in this argument

but, I will call out bad arguments


there were very high concentrations of guns in the public's hands in both Iraq and Afghanistan, guns were openly sold in bazaars in the streets.

Well, all the guns did not prevent dictators, like Saddam Hussien and the Taliban from ruling with an iron hand.
 
I have never, ever bought the "I have/need a gun for protection from the criminals/the state" argument. When it comes down to it, I'm certain that for the vast majority of rabid gun supporters, they own guns because they think they are fun, shooting them is fun, whatever. If they gave me this as their justification, I'd still disagree with the current state of gun laws, but I'd respect their honesty.
 
The main reason the Second amendment exist is because the founders wanted "the people" to be armed so they would have the power to protect themselves from tyrants like King George III, and any future tyrants that may pop up.
Taking power reserved for a sovereign and giving it "to the people".
 
Back
Top Bottom