Gun owners - do you shoot guns off to celebrate things?

[Bobby Brown]

Guns don't kill people, 

Mayors and Governors kill people. 

[rajncajn]

7 hours ago, Bobby Brown said:

Guns don't kill people, 

Mayors and Governors kill people. 

[League_Champion]

15 hours ago, Bobby Brown said:

Guns don't kill people, 

Mayors and Governors kill people. 

 

Just like knives, cars, drugs and alcohol. 

[stevegrab]

1 hour ago, LordOpie said:

this is what people don't get. In my opinion, if you want to ban guns and mandate vaccines, you need to first start with banning tobacco and cars. 

And I'm one of the few people who would love to ban cars. I'd love to be able to bring my family on bicycles to the grocery stores, etc. 

 

Ban cars?  Right, like that's even a reasonable thing. How do you propose people get from one place to another? Horse? Public Transit? 

 

Nobody is trying to BAN GUNS, or take them all away. Most just want more reasonable laws, and for the "gun culture" (see rajn's post) to stop. 

[rajncajn]

15 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

Ban guns?  Right, like that's even a reasonable thing. How do you propose people protect themselves from violent criminals? Harsh words? Police? 

 

Nobody is trying to BAN GUNS, or take them all away. Most just want more reasonable laws, and for the "gun culture" (see rajn's post) to stop. 

His point is that gun ownership shouldn't be viewed any differently than vehicle ownership. I changed the words in your first paragraph to reflect that. 

 

Your second paragraph isn't actually true either. There are plenty of politicians who want to do just that. Most may just want better laws,  but you can't say nobody wants to ban guns. It also doesn't help that so many of our politicians are just so ignorant on the subject. It really makes me wonder if many of those who politically push for gun legislation are actually serious about it. In fact, I wonder that about a lot of the hot topics in our society these days.

[stevegrab]

4 minutes ago, rajncajn said:

His point is that gun ownership shouldn't be viewed any differently than vehicle ownership. I changed the words in your first paragraph to reflect that. 

 

Your second paragraph isn't actually true either. There are plenty of politicians who want to do just that. Most may just want better laws,  but you can't say nobody wants to ban guns. It also doesn't help that so many of our politicians are just so ignorant on the subject. It really makes me wonder if many of those who politically push for gun legislation are actually serious about it. In fact, I wonder that about a lot of the hot topics in our society these days.

 

Interesting, gun ownership no different than vehicle ownership, so every gun would be registered and every owner would need a license to use their gun? Or do we remove those criteria from vehicles since they don't apply to guns. I'd be in favor of treating guns more like vehicles but doubt many gun owners would be. 

 

I suppose some people may want to ban guns, some may even be politicians and talk about it, not sure its plenty, or that anybody takes them seriously. 

 

As for guns being needed to protect oneself, I'm 57 and never needed a gun for that purpose. How many times has the average gun owner used their gun to protect themselves? Can we compare that to the number that have used their guns to harm others without just cause? 

 

I'm kind of sorry I created this thread, should have none it would spin into the usual gun debates, which it had nothing to do with. 

[rajncajn]

24 minutes ago, LordOpie said:

You've chosen to ignore content by stevegrab

If you're going to ignore someone,  just ignore them. Nobody else really cares. 

[rajncajn]

You've chosen to ignore content by LordOpie

[rajncajn]

1 hour ago, stevegrab said:

Interesting, gun ownership no different than vehicle ownership, so every gun would be registered and every owner would need a license to use their gun? Or do we remove those criteria from vehicles since they don't apply to guns. I'd be in favor of treating guns more like vehicles but doubt many gun owners would be. 

That's a different argument, but many people certainly agree. I'm on the fence about it because I also agree that registration can lead to confiscation or at best, further taxation. I also agree that gun laws will likely not change anything at all unless you remove the guns altogether and the only way you realistically accomplish that is if you've previously required registration. I'd definitely be all in for a requirement for gun safety courses, so a license that shows you've passed said course would be fine with me. 

 

Quote

I suppose some people may want to ban guns, some may even be politicians and talk about it, not sure its plenty, or that anybody takes them seriously. 

Let me ask this. If you had politicians, any politicians, wanting to put a full ban on personal motor vehicles of any sort would you be ok with that? Would you be ok with an immediate ban on any fossil fuel product? Would you be ok with a politician lobbying for anything that you believe will put you or your family at risk? Whether or not you take them seriously or not doesn't really matter. Obviously enough people took them seriously enough to elect them.

 

Quote

As for guns being needed to protect oneself, I'm 57 and never needed a gun for that purpose.

That's great, count yourself lucky. What happens if you ever need one & don't have it? What then? I don't need a flu shot because I've never gotten the flu. I don't need to wear a seatbelt because I've never been in a car accident. See the logic?

 

Quote

How many times has the average gun owner used their gun to protect themselves? Can we compare that to the number that have used their guns to harm others without just cause? 

You mean how many times was a gun used to prevent or deter someone from committing a crime? That's a fallacy, it's impossible to answer because A- The vast majority of gun prevented crimes go unreported & B- absolutely no deterred crimes go reported. You're not going to have very many gun owners calling police to tell them they whipped out their pistol to ward off someone trying to steal their wallet and how many people are going to tell you that they would have robbed your house, but they were afraid to get shot? Here's an NPR article talking about that very thing. It's obviously a bit biased against guns, but it does give some good reasons that there is very little verifiable data on it.

 

How Often Do People Use Guns In Self-Defense? : NPR

 

Quote

I'm kind of sorry I created this thread, should have none it would spin into the usual gun debates, which it had nothing to do with. 

 

And who do you have to blame for that?

Edited January 11, 2022 by rajncajn

[Bobby Brown]

1 hour ago, rajncajn said:

You've chosen to ignore content by LordOpie

[rajncajn]

56 minutes ago, LordOpie said:

you have seen that movie, yes?

That's a fact Jack

[stevegrab]

58 minutes ago, rajncajn said:

That's a different argument, but many people certainly agree. I'm on the fence about it because I also agree that registration can lead to confiscation or at best, further taxation. I also agree that gun laws will likely not change anything at all unless you remove the guns altogether and the only way you realistically accomplish that is if you've previously required registration. I'd definitely be all in for a requirement for gun safety courses, so a license that shows you've passed said course would be fine with me. 

 

Let me ask this. If you had politicians, any politicians, wanting to put a full ban on personal motor vehicles of any sort would you be ok with that? Would you be ok with an immediate ban on any fossil fuel product? Would you be ok with a politician lobbying for anything that you believe will put you or your family at risk? Whether or not you take them seriously or not doesn't really matter. Obviously enough people took them seriously enough to elect them.

 

That's great, count yourself lucky. What happens if you ever need one & don't have it? What then? I don't need a flu shot because I've never gotten the flu. I don't need to wear a seatbelt because I've never been in a car accident. See the logic?

 

You mean how many times was a gun used to prevent or deter someone from committing a crime? That's a fallacy, it's impossible to answer because A- The vast majority of gun prevented crimes go unreported & B- absolutely no deterred crimes go reported. You're not going to have very many gun owners calling police to tell them they whipped out their pistol to ward off someone trying to steal their wallet and how many people are going to tell you that they would have robbed your house, but they were afraid to get shot? Here's an NPR article talking about that very thing. It's obviously a bit biased against guns, but it does give some good reasons that there is very little verifiable data on it.

 

How Often Do People Use Guns In Self-Defense? : NPR

 

 

And who do you have to blame for that?

 

To the "would I be OK if a politician wanted to eliminate all motor vehicles" no I would not, but then what percentage of people own vehicles in this country compared to guns. 

 

As for "count myself lucky" I've lived in an urban environment all my life (Los Angeles, Cleveland and now immediate suburb of Akron), and have never been threatened by somebody where I'd need a gun. Even if I was a gun owner and willing to carry it (where legal/allowed) there will be times I have to be without it, and something could happen then, so I'd have to manage. 

 

Also lets not discount those "law abiding citizens with a licensed gun" who get angry with somebody else and kill them. (Google Matt Warmus.) 

 

Maybe you've never gotten the flu because you got the shot?  If you've never been in an auto accident count yourself lucky. I'm a motorcyclist, the best advice I got from others "expect that someday you're going to crash, wear the best safety gear you can afford". I don't wear a helmet because there's a law, I wear it because I know that even a low speed crash (or tip over) could result in hitting my head and being injured. I wear jackets, pants, boots and gloves meant to provide some protection when I crash (I've had a few minor spills). 

 

As for my quote which you linked at the bottom of your post, really is that when this discussion went off the rails?  Come on man....

[League_Champion]

40 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

. I'd definitely be all in for a requirement for gun safety courses, so a license that shows you've passed said course would be fine with me. 

 

This. EVERYONE should be required to attend gun safety classes and have a certain amount of range time before being allowed to legally purchase a gun. Background checks are great but it's not enough in my opinion. 

[rajncajn]

29 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

To the "would I be OK if a politician wanted to eliminate all motor vehicles" no I would not, but then what percentage of people own vehicles in this country compared to guns. 

I don't see what difference that makes. I think you're missing the point.

 

Quote

As for "count myself lucky" I've lived in an urban environment all my life (Los Angeles, Cleveland and now immediate suburb of Akron), and have never been threatened by somebody where I'd need a gun. Even if I was a gun owner and willing to carry it (where legal/allowed) there will be times I have to be without it, and something could happen then, so I'd have to manage.

Again, count yourself lucky. This country averages well over 4,000 crimes a day and over 1,200 of them violent crimes. Again, I think you're missing the point.

 

Quote

Also lets not discount those "law abiding citizens with a licensed gun" who get angry with somebody else and kill them. (Google Matt Warmus.) 

I don't see what difference Matt Warmus makes. Again, I think you're really missing the point.

 

Quote

Maybe you've never gotten the flu because you got the shot?  If you've never been in an auto accident count yourself lucky. I'm a motorcyclist, the best advice I got from others "expect that someday you're going to crash, wear the best safety gear you can afford". I don't wear a helmet because there's a law, I wear it because I know that even a low speed crash (or tip over) could result in hitting my head and being injured. I wear jackets, pants, boots and gloves meant to provide some protection when I crash (I've had a few minor spills). 

LOL, I don't know how it's possible, but you're definitely missing the point because you're using the same argument I am and you don't even realize it. Think of a gun as the best safety gear you can afford in terms of protection against criminals. Now tell me, how would you feel if politicians wanted to ban safety gear.

 

Quote

As for my quote which you linked at the bottom of your post, really is that when this discussion went off the rails?  Come on man....

Oh it most definitely was. Until then every single post was on the topic of your original post and there was no political gun debate whatsoever. The only debate that was going on was whether or not what happened in your news story was possible and everyone answering your original question. You, yourself were the one who turned down that road.

[rajncajn]

6 minutes ago, League_Champion said:

 

This. EVERYONE should be required to attend gun safety classes and have a certain amount of range time before being allowed to legally purchase a gun. Background checks are great but it's not enough in my opinion. 

I'm offended your post attributes that quote to steve. 

[League_Champion]

1 minute ago, rajncajn said:

I'm offended your post attributes that quote to steve. 

 

I'm sorry, haha. I have no idea how that happened. 

[League_Champion]

55 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

Also lets not discount those "law abiding citizens with a licensed gun" who get angry with somebody else and kill them. (Google Matt Warmus.) 

 

As opposed to the guy who got mad and killed someone with his bare hands, a bat, a knife, a crowbar, a 2x4 or any other household item? You're a very dumb human being Steve. 

[stevegrab]

29 minutes ago, rajncajn said:

I don't see what difference that makes. I think you're missing the point.

 

Again, count yourself lucky. This country averages well over 4,000 crimes a day and over 1,200 of them violent crimes. Again, I think you're missing the point.

 

I don't see what difference Matt Warmus makes. Again, I think you're really missing the point.

 

LOL, I don't know how it's possible, but you're definitely missing the point because you're using the same argument I am and you don't even realize it. Think of a gun as the best safety gear you can afford in terms of protection against criminals. Now tell me, how would you feel if politicians wanted to ban safety gear.

 

Oh it most definitely was. Until then every single post was on the topic of your original post and there was no political gun debate whatsoever. The only debate that was going on was whether or not what happened in your news story was possible and everyone answering your original question. You, yourself were the one who turned down that road.

 

I get it, you think I'm missing the point.  

 

As for "treat a gun like other safety gear" I don't wear a helmet and other safety gear in a car, because the dangers are less. I don't frequent places with a lot of crime, or put myself in a position to be a victim. There is a lot of crime out there, not enough for me to need to be armed at all times. Maybe you disagree.

 

Matt Warmus makes a difference, he is just one example of armed people who think they have a right to kill others over stupid disagreements. No different that the inner city guy who will rob you and shoot you, he had no respect for human life and thought his gun made him a man. A bad guy with a gun, and no good guy with a gun to save his victim. 

 

Break that down 100 times again and tell me I'm missing the point, don't care. You had some rational points about gun culture and gun rights, I'll try to take that as a positive. 

[stevegrab]

29 minutes ago, League_Champion said:

 

As opposed to the guy who got mad and killed someone with his bare hands, a bat, a knife, a crowbar, a 2x4 or any other household item? You're a very dumb human being Steve. 

And you are a disgusting subhuman. 

[League_Champion]

32 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

And you are a disgusting subhuman. 

 

But I am correct. Henry Ruggs murdered an innocent Woman with his car, not a gun. Owning a gun does not make one a murderer. 

[rajncajn]

4 hours ago, stevegrab said:

I get it, you think I'm missing the point.  

 

As for "treat a gun like other safety gear" I don't wear a helmet and other safety gear in a car, because the dangers are less. I don't frequent places with a lot of crime, or put myself in a position to be a victim. There is a lot of crime out there, not enough for me to need to be armed at all times. Maybe you disagree.

No, you wear your seatbelt in a car. It's still a safety device and doesn't change the point one iota.  And no, I don't feel the need to be armed at all times either. I never said that, nor implied it. But I do feel the need to own a gun and mostly keep it in my house for protection. On occasion I may take it with me for the same reason, but not really that often. I can't even have it in my car at work, so it's really kind of rare.

 

Quote

Matt Warmus makes a difference, he is just one example of armed people who think they have a right to kill others over stupid disagreements. No different that the inner city guy who will rob you and shoot you, he had no respect for human life and thought his gun made him a man. A bad guy with a gun, and no good guy with a gun to save his victim. 

Congratulations, you provided one example from over 10 years ago and try to compare that to the thousands of illegal gun wielders who commit crimes every year. You really can't be serious with this unbelievably false equivalency.

 

Quote

Break that down 100 times again and tell me I'm missing the point, don't care.

You're missing the point. It doesn't take more than once to come to that conclusion.

 

Quote

You had some rational points about gun culture and gun rights, I'll try to take that as a positive. 

So, my points are only rational when they agree with your perspective, got it.

Edited January 12, 2022 by rajncajn

[League_Champion]

6 minutes ago, rajncajn said:

No, you wear your seatbelt in a car. It's still a safety device and doesn't change the point one iota.  And no, I don't feel the need to be armed at all times either. I never said that, nor implied it. But I do feel the need to own a gun and mostly keep it in my house for protection. On occasion I may take it with me for the same reason, but not really that often. I can't even have it in my car at work, so it's really kind of rare.

 

Congratulations, you provided one example from over 10 years ago and try to compare that to the thousands of illegal gun owners who commit crimes every year. You really can't be serious with this unbelievably false equivalency.

 

You're missing the point. It doesn't take more than once to come to that conclusion.

 

So, my points are only rational when they agree with your perspective, got it.

 

Don't you love their thinking? They want to blame gun violence on and disarm legally permitted gun owners. Not the ones who are committing these crimes, that's on your Mayor's, keep defunding the Police. 

[stevegrab]

12 hours ago, rajncajn said:

No, you wear your seatbelt in a car. It's still a safety device and doesn't change the point one iota.  And no, I don't feel the need to be armed at all times either. I never said that, nor implied it. But I do feel the need to own a gun and mostly keep it in my house for protection. On occasion I may take it with me for the same reason, but not really that often. I can't even have it in my car at work, so it's really kind of rare.

 

Congratulations, you provided one example from over 10 years ago and try to compare that to the thousands of illegal gun wielders who commit crimes every year. You really can't be serious with this unbelievably false equivalency.

 

You're missing the point. It doesn't take more than once to come to that conclusion.

 

So, my points are only rational when they agree with your perspective, got it.

 

Well that all seems pretty sensible, and not what I hear from some gun owners. They need that gun all the time, everywhere they go and say they'll ignore any signs saying they're not allowed to carry. (When concealed carry became legal in Ohio businesses were allowed to post signs saying NO GUNS and people were expected to obey.)

 

Just one example, there are more, the guys convicted of killing Ahmed Aubery are another more recent example. Hopefully you're not one of those who believe they are innocent.

 

I've simply never felt the need to own a gun for protection, and millions of Americans (including many who live in urban areas with high crime) feel the same. (I also don't have a wife and kids I need to protect, but there's plenty of families without guns for protection too.) Plus if you have your guns properly secured in your home it will take longer to get them and mean there's a lower chance it can be used for defense. (Or they are left unsecured, create accidental shootings or get stolen and used by criminals.) 

 

I DO NOT support the idea of taking guns away or banning them. I just want some more reasonable controls, like we talked about comparing them to owning a vehicle (requiring registration and training/licensing). And it sounds like you also agree with that, but fear that gun registration will lead to confiscation. So we're not that far apart in some regards.

[League_Champion]

3 hours ago, stevegrab said:

 

I DO NOT support the idea of taking guns away or banning them. I just want some more reasonable controls,

 

This is where we agree. I have absolutely no problem with stricter guidelines, gun training, etc. And then try to keep illegal or stolen guns out of criminals hands, that's a whole other issue. 

[stevegrab]

2 hours ago, League_Champion said:

 

This is where we agree. I have absolutely no problem with stricter guidelines, gun training, etc. And then try to keep illegal or stolen guns out of criminals hands, that's a whole other issue. 

 

Knowing where your guns are would be a good first step. Many of the cases where somebody tried to get thru TSA checkpoint with a gun in their bag they claimed "I didn't even know that was in there". Really?