Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMS General Discussions Politics Guns Guns and More Guns
TOPIC: Guns Guns and More Guns
GoTo Page: Less ... 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 ... More 
Start   4991 to 5000 of 5985   End
User Details are only visible to members.
TBR, I'm a reasonable man, as I believe you are as well. So that I may better see where you're coming from, What types of restrictions or laws would you be proposing?

Reno NV
Username hidden
(1176 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
sigh are you boys fighting this late at night?

PG

Louisville KY
Username hidden
(19773 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Well, Dan, the way things are supposed to be are much different than the way they actually are.

And no amount of wishing or saying it shouldn't be that way will change it.

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(18074 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
TBR, I'll agree with you in part to the following quote... "However, the majority also believe guns laws should be more strict." Of course that depends on who's polls you choose to read. The NRA operates with a strict non-giving attitude, because the most vocal anti-gun groups are not interested in a compromise. They believe that the only guns in public ownership is what they themselves deem suitable for "hunting" only. Therein is the cross-over to the personal rights of self protection and the constitution, which was never about hunting. The NRA believes to give an inch, means that we'll never stop giving in, until the anti's ultimately have exactly what they want, the public being allowed to own only single shot rifles and shotguns. At that point, the animal activist groups can finish us off, and we end up a society totally unarmed.

The fact is, the American non-gun public is going to believe whatever hand picked stats are put in front of them, and the polls you cited are obviously victims of stats prepared by the "brady bunch" and other gun-grabbers. The nation as a whole, already has some very strict gun laws in existence, the problem with the laws, is they only affect those who are predetermined to follow them to begin with.

Reno NV
Username hidden
(1176 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
In fact, Dan, I would.

There are plenty of instances when the Supreme Court has changed a previous opinion based on public sentiment. Plessy v Ferguson and then Brown v Board of Education comes immediately to mind.

There is not a lot of constitutional opinion on the Second amendment. Things could go either way. The pro-gunners have a somewhat sympathetic court now, but 20 years from now? 50 years from now?

While the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it has always been subject to current public opinion.

Current public opinion is in favor of more gun control. More gun control will end when??? You don't know, and neither do I. Better to make a compromise now and avoid an outright ban,

But that is just my opinion. YMMV.

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(18074 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Dancing-

I do stats for a living, so I know very well the uses and abuses that can take place.

The stats on gun ownership are all over the place. One could cherry pick the particular study to prove ones case. I am not an expert on gun studies, but I believe one's personal bias has a lot to do with the outcome. You know what Mark Twain said about statistics, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

I believe you have a right to own firearms. My point is, to the average person, your enunciation of a perceived need based on a possible tyrannical government weakens your case, rather than strengthens it.

Look at the polls of firearms ownership. The majority support the individual right to own a gun. However, the majority also believe guns laws should be more strict.

As objectively as I can look at it, the NRA and the like are losing the PR war on restriction of firearms. IMHO, it would be better to strike some kind of deal allowing some restriction of ownership in order to stem the tide of public opinion.

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(18074 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
TBR, Now you surprise me. You know as well as I, that statistics are frequently a game for fools, when not viewed in a very exacting context. The stats you're quoting are a fine example. It's a documented fact that legally owned firearms are used every year to prevent violent crime from happening. That's undeniable. Statistically it would amount to a very small percentage when when compared to total gun ownership. However, it's a useless statistic to the thousands that did need a firearm to protect themselves. The problem with the science of statistics is that in many areas there are just too many gray areas produced both by the people that collect the data, as well as those that interpret it. Although I don't have any numbers available, I could probably suppose that I would be less likely to need a firearm to protect myself in downtown Reno, which is firearm friendly, as opposed to downtown Chicago, which is not. Of course that can't be proven statistically, because there are too many unknowns. On the other hand, there is a lot of supporting data to suggest that violent crime rates are lower in metropolitan areas that do not prohibit legally owning and carrying firearms for self defense. Can we statistically measure the amount of crime that's prevented by the deterrent that a possibly armed citizen presents to a criminal? No, of course we can't. Sometimes we just have to draw a hypothesis based on common sense from the facts that we can view.

Do I think that personal protection is a valid argument for gun ownership? Absolutely I do. Is it the single most compelling argument for gun ownership? No, it's just one of many.

Reno NV
Username hidden
(1176 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Ok On to banning something much more dangerous, Strap ons. Now I think they are ok for girl on girl. But somewhere some poor smuck has probably had a heart attack and died when the girl of his dreams pulls one of these dangerous weapons from her toy bag.

Sanford NC
Username hidden
(19580 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
And that is basically my point. But I think the pro-gunners bring some of this on themselves saying they "need" firearms for some reason that has a statistically insignificant chance of occurrence. You want firearms for your own personal enjoyment. And I support that.

If you want to own a circular saw great. Just say you want one because you want one. You may or may not ever build a house with it. But don't say you are going to build a house when we all know you are not...

That's like saying I need a Sherman tank to drive to work in case I get hit by another car...

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(18074 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
TBR Just a comparative analogy for your amusement. I find it equally ridiculous that a few small groups would attempt to remove our rights to own firearms, which are just another tool afterall.

Reno NV
Username hidden
(1176 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 ... More 
Start   4991 to 5000 of 5985   End
TOPIC: Guns Guns and More Guns