Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?

OWB

If you actually read my posts you’d realise that isn’t true, thing is that I’m trying to understand your position but you seem much more interested in trying to ‘prove’ that I’m a wrongdoer than in honest debate.

But I don’t ‘make the guns the villains’ (you really do need to read my posts), go back and read the stuff about the problem seeming to be going back to the mentality and attitudes of many people.
But I do think as part of a holistic approach that some regulation is needed in the area of gun ownership.

As I’ve said I think the problem with guns is not so much the guns but the attitudes and mentality of those that support the pro-gun stance. It seems to me that it is this mentality that sidetracks people from seeking alternative means of dealing with social, economic and political problems.

As far as I know you have not actually showed any interest in the discussion of socio-economic problems and how to tackle them, however you have seemed to show some condescension in your reaction toward different approaches.

As you do here – your condescension about this speaks volumes.
*

I’ve contended that many pro-gunners don’t seem interested in alternatives or even show hostility toward them. As far as I know you have not actually showed any interest in the discussion of socio-economic problems and how to tackle them, however you show a hostile toward different approaches none the less.

And where have I supposedly ignored the real world?

 

OWB

LOL. Have you read all the things I’ve suggested to you? I mean it often seems clear you haven’t actually even read my posts.

I’ve ordered the book you have suggested from the library (it does look intriguing) how long that will take I’m unsure, and I have just started reading American Caesars: Lives of the US Presidents, from Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush by Nigel Hamilton so it will have to wait until I’ve finished that.

But I do wonder why you have suggested it? From what I can tell it is about the treatment of ‘red Indians’ by the ‘white man’ which was often deplorable (“the only good Indian is a dead Indian”, forced assimilation etc). But that was often the way with imperial subjugation, by one race or group over others just look at the treatment of the Scottish, Irish and Welsh by the imperial English let alone what they did to the natives in their empire. So I’m not sure why you are bringing it up in this context.

As I said a holistic approach would cover many areas with the aim of trying to improve everyone’s quality of life. It is not about any particular ethnic group.

 

Roo

But if your gun is stolen due to it being unsecured or you pass it on to someone that isn’t legally entitled to own a gun or whom you believe is going to use it to commit a crime or you believe will do someone harm with it, then I think you should bare some responsibility for that because you are acting irresponsibly.

 

Broony

In what way?

 

Some gun owners have a CWP (concealed weapons permit) allowing them to have a pistol on them. Each state varies in law so not every state allows a CWP. Though some states do without any paperwork!

When it comes to looking at a lot of situations differently, gun owners know they hold a certain power for a means of last resort. When i read or hear a piece of news that involves a crime whether small or very big, myself as well as gun owners (i'm not speaking for everyone, but i feel i am for a lot) wonder if they would have stepped in, put their life on the line, for someone they don't know, because they feel they are doing the right thing. Essentially putting your foot down for justice in that given situation. Its a very serious question.

Their was a public robbing in Atlanta Georgia where 15 or 17 people took 3 subway cars hostage. In another forum i talk in all of whom are gun owners, a lot of debate is over the subject. If your in one of those subway cars with 5 robbers holding hostage and shoots one in the shoulder as a means of giving up possessions would you then take action. A lot of people say they would, others are unsure. I've talked to people who carry two concealed handguns both semi-auto on the subway if they are traveling across state to visit family for the weekend, and wonder what they would do.

Their was a fight at a camping ground a hundred miles from my house where two men got into a fight. One guy was knocked to the ground and apparently gave signs of giving up. The other man didn't agree and hit him again and continued to do so tell he was put in critical condition. He was hospitalized and was lucky to live. The other guy got a decent prison sentence which i cannon't remember. Well if i was camping two or four spots over, or across and i saw this would i step in and tell him to back off, potentially saving the man from a further beating. Its hard for me to answer until the thoughts and instincts run. I don't know what to say i would do because it has not happened and i cannot talk from experience here.

I don't go to those car parking spot tent sights where you pay, but i do carry a firearm(s) when i'm camping. I don't want to take the risk of a bear destroying my camp sight, my dogs, or myself and friends. People who know me close know i carry in certain places, and i let them know. Some people think differently when it comes to means of protection and preparing. A lot of people don't go to such lengths. Some of us do, its just how we feel.

I need to end this rant.

 

I am thinking the same way as broony when it comes to the camping situation, I to camp off the beaten path and last week while camping there where many signs there was a large animal in my camp.
The bears are very active this season because of a low food supply so they are making themselves very well known.
There is no reasoning with a black bear, no playing dead they will just eat you like an easy snack, your only hope is they lose intrest or you defend yourself, a gun is the best way to do so.
So I plan on buying a gun, a shot gun, first round would be a bean bag or rubber slug, second would be buck shot as many times as it takes to bring it down.

 

Broony

Well your reply seems once again to back up my theories.

You seem to be arguing that in your view the change in thinking you talk about (that comes with gun ownership) is toward (or further toward) the idea that the threat of violence, intimidation and suppression are legitimate means of social control.

 

If you are going to use a shotgun for protection from something as large as a bear, buckshot will only piss him off. Use 1 1/4 oz slugs, that will certainly be much better than buckshot.

 

When the paradigm shift in humanity occurs that you are hoping for in which violence is no longer a part of the human existence, then I will give up guns or some other lethal means of protection, until then I will hang on to my guns.

Your theories and ideas are not bad nor are they completely wrong, just not based very much in the real world situation it would appear.

 

A few rounds of buckshot to the face will be painful enough to stop a bear from attacking, most likely it will blind it.

 

Balbus

The first two examples i used were pretty serious crimes during some very unfortunate circumstances.

The the third one your protecting yourself against nature, i find it hard not to bring a gun when you go into deep wilderness. You are not very strong out their against some animals when you are alone. Going out with several people is entirely different. When i go hiking in very remote ares i wont go without a gun, period.

Alaska is our most tolerable state towards guns. Some will say otherwise, but the vast majority of the population in Alaska is fine with guns because of so many circumstances living there. No paperwork or permits are required unless you personally want one. They are surrounded by many kinds of bear, deer, elk, wolves, coyotes, and moose. Some of these animals like the deer, bear and moose walk through peoples property almost weekly! Guns is a humans strongest form of protection. Where you live might make you want a gun and you buy it hoping you never need to use it. If the living situation was different you might not need, but in some places where EMT help can't arive in minutes you might need one.

Bears and cougars have killed people, moose, deer, bear and elk will charge you if they have young wit them. Their are a number of ways things can go bad because how remote it is. Imagine only getting into your town or camping ground by plane!

I don't believe anything i just said has anything to do with social control. I have a right to protect myself using a firearm. Not everyone lives in a city surrounded by people. A lot of people who own guns don't live in cities or big towns. If you take a walk in the woods and run into a predator good luck to you. If you're ok with potentially getting killed, well its your life. If you want to protect it i will keep giving the same answer.

 

Dude, if you are going to fire a weapon at an animal for self defense, please kill it rather than maiming it. Killing it would be far more merciful than maiming a wild animal so it ends up dying a slow death from starvation.

 

I would kill it as soon as I hopefully stopped an attack, I would not just let slowly die.

 

It doesn't matter what it gets hit by through a shotgun their is no guarantee it would kill it first shot. Bears can have lots of fat on them that can slow or stop vital organs from being damaged. I would say a slug is your best bet, all would do enough damage for the animal to stop and rethink if it wants to continue.

Even a shot in the air can be enough to warn it off. That goes for a lot of animals, but don't count on it to work every time.

 

I would not expect the buck shot to kill a bear, but I can imagine it will it will cause much pain since a charging bears head shot or shot to the legs or back is most likely the shot available. I do agree though a slug would cause more damage and yes the animal may rethink it's stance.

I just don't own a slug barrel.

 

Wish what?

Well for one thing I don't believe that I said either, so what's to answer?

 

Yeah right, you caught me. You are the worst person that ever lived, right up there with Hitler and Stalin and I'm so scared that you might have something to say that actually pertains to the OP, that I just lied about it.

You really do need to get a grip on reality.

Yes, your accusing me of trying to prove you are being a "‘bad’ person" is another example of you taking what a person actually has said and changing it into what you want it to say.

If you could show me just one time where I've accused you of being a "‘bad’ person" but you can't. Other then the sarcasm I used above, I have never said you were a "‘bad’ person" and in fact have denied that I thought you were a "‘bad’ person".

Yet in your paranoia, for want of a better word, you have come up with this completely imaginary argument that I'm trying to prove you are a "‘bad’ person".

And that is an example of what you do continually and it is what I have been pointing out to you all along and that is the fact that you ignore what is said to you and you come up with a completely imaginary argument and try to force people to discuss your imaginary arguments.

If you want to think that coming up with your imaginary arguments that have nothing to do with what was said to you, makes you a "‘bad’ person" and is bad behavior. That is up to you but I have not said it or even implied it.

I have only asked that you stop doing it because it derails the conversation and to use your phrase, it is not honest debate.

 

Although you have "corrected" it, you still bring it up and you keep bringing it up and you bring it up again.

You have already threatened to ban me just for replying to it and yet bring it up again, to what purpose? Just to see if you can ban me for replying?

The truth is that if you stop bringing it up, I will stop replying to it.

 

Once again it is you that has brought it up again.

The truth is that if you stop bringing it up, I will stop replying to it.

 

Thanks, you continue to provide such fine examples of what I'm talking about.

How many times now have I said that saying someone is lying and saying they are lying to themselves are two differing concepts but you continue to, not just imply but actually say "you think I'm lying, which is in fact twisting what I have said.

*

The old question mark defense again?

Here try reading it again without the question mark:
"I mean what you are saying is that in your opinion and contrary to what has been said by me in this thread you believe that I want to ban all guns"
This is not in the form of a question and aside from your rather transparent use of a question mark, no attempt was even made to try and make it look like a question.

I could rephrase what you said like this:
Are you saying that in your opinion and contrary to what has been said by me in this thread you believe that I want to ban all guns
Even without a question mark at the end, no one would mistake it as a statement about what has been said.

Huffy or not, it is interesting to note that this is an answer to your question and also you did not answer my question to you.

Your use of the word ban in your "question" is the problem. Your bringing up the subject "implies" that I had said you wanted to ban guns and that is what I responded to and that is an example of what you do.

As for the "Abrogate" indecent, unlike you I have no qualms about acknowledging my errors, apologizing and correcting them, something you seem to have great difficultly in doing or is it that you never make mistakes.