Response to comments on Gun Control

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

12 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

12 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

12 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

12 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

12 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

12 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

12 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

12 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

12 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

12 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

Mucky Tundra (1h) : Kaydon Finley, son of Jermichael Finley, commits to Notre Dame

dfosterf (3-Jul) : Make sure to send my props to him! A plus move!

Zero2Cool (3-Jul) : My cousin, yes.

dfosterf (3-Jul) : That was your brother the GB press gazette referenced with the red cross draft props thing, yes?

Zero2Cool (2-Jul) : Packers gonna unveil new throwback helmet in few weeks.

Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : I know it's Kleiman but this stuff writes itself

Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : "Make sure she signs the NDA before asking for a Happy Ending!"

Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : @NFL_DovKleiman Powerful: Deshaun Watson is taking Shedeur Sanders 'under his wing' as a mentor to the Browns QBs

Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Dolphins get (back) Minkah Fitzpatrick in trade

Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Steelers land Jalen Ramsey via Trade

dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us

dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.

wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.

Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served

dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year

dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot

dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy

dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.

dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy

dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year

dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.

dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest

dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.

Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?

Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason

Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”

Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.

Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.

Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH

beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.

Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law

Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter

Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter

Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp

dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night

dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60

dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO

Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m

dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions

dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing

Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.

dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup

dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw

dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.

Zero2Cool (11-Jun) : He's been sporting a ring for a while now. It's probably Madonna.

Martha Careful (10-Jun) : We only do the tea before whoopee, it relaxes me.

wpr (10-Jun) : That's awesome Martha.

Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : How's the ayahuasca tea he makes, Martha?

Martha Careful (10-Jun) : Turns out he like older women

Martha Careful (10-Jun) : I wasn't supposed to say anything, but yes the word is out and we are happy 😂😂😂

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2025 Packers Schedule

Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM

COMMANDERS

Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM

Browns

Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM

Cowboys

Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM

BENGALS

Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM

Cardinals

Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM

Steelers

Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM

PANTHERS

Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM

EAGLES

Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM

Giants

Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM

Lions

Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM

BEARS

Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM

Broncos

Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM

Bears

Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM

RAVENS

Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM

Vikings