Response to comments on Gun Control

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

11 years ago

Admittedly, I’m not that well versed with guns, but I do know that assault rifles serve one primary purpose, … to kill… many, quickly and I don’t feel there is any place for them in our civilian hands. I’ve read quite a few comments on news sites, forums and Facebook and it’s astonishing how foolish many of the pro-gun people are. I’m all for the 2nd amendment and from (my interpretation) of it. Meaning, you hold arms for protection. A shotgun, handgun… not an assault rifle that fires off 30 shots a second or whatever insane spray they have.

A few of the asinine comments I’ve seen that have rubbed me wrong …

“Why doesn’t a resident killing a would be robber in a gun battle make national news?”

People posing these kind of questions who bear arms, … scare me! Does a robber killing a resident make national news? Not without a racial undertone it doesn’t. Another failure to understand big picture.

“Obama’s family gets protected 24/7 by men with guns and feels you don’t need guns to protect your family.“

This was stated in the context that Obama is saying his family is more important. Wrong. The family of the President of the United States is recognized world-wide and as the most powerful man in the world means consequently his family is at risk. It’s no way shape or form saying one family is more important than the other.

“We don’t blame cars for drunk drivers. Why blame guns for violent people?”

This is another one that irritates me because of how ignorant it is. Getting into a vehicle intoxicated is adding RISK to killing someone. Entering a school, church, movie theater, mall or anywhere heavily populated with people with assault rifles and grenades is doing so with the INTENT to kill MANY. How is this difficult to understand?

“56 children 14 and under died from fatal gun accidents compared to 86 died in bathtubs”

All I have to say about this, and anyone with an IQ > 35 will understand is this … how many children play with guns everyday compared to how many children take a bath every day? Context, it’s a statistics end game.

“Let us ban knives because 22 children were stabbed in China”

I find this interesting because those stating it always fail to acknowledge that all 22 children survived. Visit your child in the hospital or attend their funeral? Think about it.

I have little to no issue with home protection gun ownership, recreational hunting… I just don’t feel there’s a realistic need for you, me, or our neighbors to possess assault rifles.

Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your PACKERSHOME forum account or Register a new forum account

Pack93z
Select Member

11 years ago

I have little to no issue with home protection gun ownership, recreational hunting… I just don’t feel there’s a realistic need for you, me, or our neighbors to possess assault rifles.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

This I agree with.. the classification of an assault rifle/weapon needs clear definition however.

Additionally, I think there should be tiers of weapons and training/licensing needed to possess the different classes/tiers of weapons.

The right to own a gun is protected by the amendments of this country, but that doesn't mean it should be completely unregulated.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

4PackGirl
Registered

11 years ago

i seriously couldn't agree more, kevin.

i wish more people could feel empathy for others more often.

if having a gun in your nightstand somehow gives you a higher sense of security, i guess that works for some.
but i know that unless my family was in harms way, i could NEVER EVER shoot another human being & if you have a gun in your home for protection, you have to be fully prepared to use that gun.

violence has become far too big of a presence in our lives. i'm one of few parents who will NOT allow their kids to play call of duty. most of the boys friends have been playing them since they were 8!!! that to me is lazy parenting & just plain ignorant.

Porforis
Veteran Member

11 years ago

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

Even if we take your example as an exaggeration to make a point (very few weapons, and as far as I'm aware, no legal weapons fire half that quickly), I firmly believe that at least 75% of Americans (including many gun owners) believe that banning the sale of weapons like that is acceptable.

Like many other political issues these days (spending, taxation), I think the problem arises when nobody is willing to firmly define terms and explain what is and is not acceptable. People will point fingers at problems and bad things and propose solutions, but they don't define what IS acceptable and what IS a reasonable balance of liberties and safety. Obviously, there's people on extremes of the political spectrums that won't be happy no matter what, but for most people closer to the middle, I do believe there's room for agreement and compromise with enough rational and effective communication.

This is the legislation many politicians want to re-enact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.

While there are certainly many things in here I think most of us can agree should be banned, why is there other crap in there? Why are we banning firearms by name rather than using simple, measurable terms to determine what should and should not be legal? Why can't we say that any semi-automatic weapon capable of firing over x rounds per minute is illegal, any magazine size over x is illegal? Why is everybody saying X, Y, and Z need to be banned without firmly defining where the trail of banning should end?

Personally, I don't see the need to own a firearm. Hell, the day I moved into my new home, I heard a series of pops from a parking lot two blocks north of me and there were cop cars out there for about 6 hours afterwards. Nobody got killed but it was apparent there were shots fired. But still, I don't think I'm responsible enough to own a firearm with my history of depression and much earlier in life, suicide attempts. That being said, I understand why many people want to own firearms to protect their families in the case of home invasions and the like.

And I know that if I did have a handgun, I would want a semi-auto handgun. If I honestly need to shoot someone, I'd absolutely love to be able to simply incapacitate someone as the thought of killing ANYBODY sickens me, but if someone is in my house and is threatening myself and my wife I am not going to take the chance. If I lived out in the country, I could see myself having a rifle of some sort and if it was in an area known for druggies raiding houses, maybe something semi-auto. I could never see myself with a semi-auto shotgun though.

Cheesey
Preferred Member

11 years ago

People are murdered EVERY DAY in America with things other then guns. Should we outlaw anything that has been used to murder someone?

You see, it ALL boils down to the fact that you have to make the punishment of using a gun or anything to kill someone as your "target". Going after guns will not lower violent crime.
The agenda of those in power is to highlight ANY crime committed with a gun, as a "reason" to take away guns.
And what exactly is an "assualt weapon?" I have heard the term, but it seems most people have no idea what that means.
If you mean "automatic weapons", then i can see why they are not neccesary to be owned by the general public.
If you mean semi automatic, then i disagree.
An AR-15 is no more dangerous then a 30-06 rifle, but it LOOKS "meaner".
It's the BAD PEOPLE that we have to target if what your real desire is to stop mass murders like we have seen.
A person beaten to death with a baseball bat is just as dead as someone shot to death.

And as i have said over and over, and it's still true, is if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.
They are, and always will be out there. Just because you don't SEE them doesn't mean they arn't there.
As i have stated before, countries that have outlawed guns have had increased gun violence. Why? Because criminals LOVE helpless victims.
I'm not saying everyone should own a gun. If you don't want one, don't get one.
I would shoot an intruder if it meant protecting my loved ones. Does that make me evil? I would HATE to have to do it, but do you think a criminal would have any problem with attacking me, or raping my wife while i'm forced to watch?
Check out the number of people that have saved thier own lives and the lives of their loved ones, alot of times without even having to fire a shot, just because they had a gun and showed it to the intruder.
It happens all the time in this country, but as it flies against the scare tactics the liberal media wants, it's usually not reported on.

Formo
Veteran Member

11 years ago

The problem lies in the government's/media's definition of 'assault weapons'. And the continued ignorance of what a semi-automatic and a full automatic weapon is.

Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

11 years ago

The problem lies in the government's/media's definition of 'assault weapons'. And the continued ignorance of what a semi-automatic and a full automatic weapon is.

Originally Posted by: Formo

Legit inquiry ... can you explain the difference?

Formo
Veteran Member

11 years ago

Legit inquiry ... can you explain the difference?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

Between semi-autos and full-autos?

Semi-autos, regardless if the trigger is pulled or held, one round is fired. Full-autos, if you hold the trigger, it will continue firing rounds.

As far as the definition of an 'assault weapon', basically, the government/media considers any weapon that LOOKS scary/militaristic as an 'assault weapon'.

Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

11 years ago

Originally Posted by: Formo

When I say I don't feel we civilians need to possess any assault rifles, I was speaking more about the weapons that you pull the trigger and 30 shots ring out in seconds.

I'd say semi-auto is fine, but full-auto, I disagree with that we NEED to have them. I feel the former is more adherent to the 2nd amendment than the latter.

Pack93z
Select Member

11 years ago

#10

There will be the argument, that with some work, tools and knowledge.. one can take a semi auto and convert it to fire more than one round per pull.

Here is my problem with both the semi and fully automatic weapons (and yes I have fired one a couple different times) is neither is very accurate and to be honest.. past the first couple rounds.. you are not taking the time to aim and fire between the adrenaline and recoil. So in my opinion, they don't make very good sport guns because of this.

I agree we in the public sector do not need a fully automatic weapon at all.. and probably not a semi either. But I guess I would make the regulations on them much stiffer to obtain the ability to own them at the very least.

And no.. just like the drug trade, you are not going to stop the criminals from obtaining what they want as the US regulations are always going to differ from the worlds. But lessening the opportunity for the types of "killer" that commit these spree killings.. such regulations as a tier program will limit the probably some.

We live not in bubbles and we are a "free" society... you are not going to stop it all.. even in a full out removal of guns. Personally, if those in power would just define in black and white what is allowable and not by the law abiding public within reason, it is about as good as the issue is going to get without changing the "free" society concept more than we already have.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

beast (2h) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

beast (10h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (15h) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (17h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I literally just said it.

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS