Jump to content

Guns in America


MichaelWeston

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, T-Dub said:

 

 

Did you actually read that?  I can't find anything backing up your claim.  I see an increase in sales & manufacturing over the last 3-5 years. One coinciding with efforts to ban "fully semi-automatic assault pistols" or whatever-the-fuck.  I see ownership has actually declined since 2014.  

 

Please point me to where it says ownership has tripled over the last 10-20 years, because I'm not finding it.

The number of guns manufactured in the U.S. has nearly doubled in just a few short years, from nearly 5.5 million in 2010 to nearly 10.9 million in 2013. The overwhelming majority of those guns stay on U.S. soil; around 400,000 firearms were exported in 2013.

 

It's in the damn article. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MichaelWeston said:

The number of guns manufactured in the U.S. has nearly doubled in just a few short years, from nearly 5.5 million in 2010 to nearly 10.9 million in 2013. The overwhelming majority of those guns stay on U.S. soil; around 400,000 firearms were exported in 2013.

 

It's in the damn article. 

 

 

That's manufacturing.  The same article says ownership has decreased.  So basically, people that already own guns are buying more, coinciding with ham-fisted attempts to ban them.  In other words, supporting half-assed reactionary laws actually increased gun sales.  Good job!  :thumbsup:

 

You got to pat yourself on the back though, and that's what really matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

 

 

 

They were his dad's legally-owned guns.  They were a shotgun and a revolver.  He did not purchase them, which is fairly typical when this shit happens. 

 

So while I agree the NRA is fucking loony, I'm not sure how laws would've made a difference here.  Charging the Dad for not securing them would be reasonable, I think.  Maybe laws about secure storage would be a good place to start, instead of worrying about what kind of gun people use to shoot someone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, T-Dub said:

 

 

That's manufacturing.  The same article says ownership has decreased.  So basically, people that already own guns are buying more, coinciding with ham-fisted attempts to ban them.  In other words, supporting half-assed reactionary laws actually increased gun sales.  Good job!  :thumbsup:

 

You got to pat yourself on the back though, and that's what really matters.

What do you think happened to the manufactured guns? They put them in a pit? Then covered it over with concrete? Gun sales did not decrease. They increased by almost double. Just because the same people bought more guns doesn't mean this isn't the problem. When you look at the mass murderers in these schools and otherwise are they not the ones who own more than one gun? Or their families own more than one gun? The acceptance of this gun culture is a huge part of the issue. Overall the production of guns is like vermin. If you have ever had mice you don't notice it when you have 2 mice living in your attic. You notice it when there are 20 mice and those mice start entering your kitchen because there isn't enough food. Same with ants. The more guns manufactured the more that find their way into zealots hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, T-Dub said:

 

 

They were his dad's legally-owned guns.  They were a shotgun and a revolver.  He did not purchase them, which is fairly typical when this shit happens. 

 

So while I agree the NRA is fucking loony, I'm not sure how laws would've made a difference here.  Charging the Dad for not securing them would be reasonable, I think.  Maybe laws about secure storage would be a good place to start, instead of worrying about what kind of gun people use to shoot someone?

The kind of gun surely matters. It makes it easier to kill more people. Your argument might as well be I really like to walk into women's locker rooms so I think I should be able to do that because it's something that I enjoy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MichaelWeston said:

When you look at the mass murderers in these schools and otherwise are they not the ones who own more than one gun? 

 

Seems like most of them don't own them at all, or shouldn't legally be allowed to have them in the first place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MichaelWeston said:

The kind of gun surely matters. It makes it easier to kill more people. Your argument might as well be I really like to walk into women's locker rooms so I think I should be able to do that because it's something that I enjoy. 

 

Flawless logic there, how insightful.  Obviously you're just here to troll and try to make yourself feel like you're doing something useful.  Is it working?

 

I guess all the other gun owners on this site know better than to engage with your silly bullshit.  I should follow their example. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, T-Dub said:

 

 

They were his dad's legally-owned guns.  They were a shotgun and a revolver.  He did not purchase them, which is fairly typical when this shit happens. 

 

So while I agree the NRA is fucking loony, I'm not sure how laws would've made a difference here.  Charging the Dad for not securing them would be reasonable, I think.  Maybe laws about secure storage would be a good place to start, instead of worrying about what kind of gun people use to shoot someone?

 

 

I'm not sure why that is always a sore, sticking point with you. 

But to be clear, all guns suck. And easy access to all of them is a problem.

 

The kid obtained them "illegally". So yes his dad should be charged and sued for everything he owns.

People that have guns should be forced to carry insurance.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, oldschooler said:

 

 

 

 

The kid obtained them "illegally". So yes his dad should be charged

 

 

 

Charged with what? Not a lawyer but I guess you could try to go for criminal negligence or something like that.  Thing is, if you leave your keys in your car and some drunk steals it I don't think you'd be charged with a crime if they run someone over.  Maybe I'm wrong?

 

It's funny how pointing out the hysteria around "assault rifles" is seen as a "sore, sticking point."   If you want "common sense" gun law reforms you need to apply some common sense to the problem.  Pardon me for not silently approving of all the WARGLBARGL! on the topic.  If you'd like me to STFU and let the circlejerk in here go on uninterrupted just say so.  :P

 

A law about how guns are to be secured might make sense, but having them locked in a safe & unloaded would remove any self-defense value. It's also something that would have to be enforced after the fact, because good luck sending agents door to door demanding to inspect people's gun collections.  If you want to make all the 3% militia kooks go full retard that'd be the way to do it.  That's definitely not going to reduce gun violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, T-Dub said:

 

Charged with what? Not a lawyer but I guess you could try to go for criminal negligence or something like that.  Thing is, if you leave your keys in your car and some drunk steals it I don't think you'd be charged with a crime if they run someone over.  Maybe I'm wrong?

 

Well, I don't know all the particulars and all of the laws, especially in Texas, but if you own guns and leave them out to

where your child can take them and shoot up his school, then yes, you should be charged with something severely.

If there isn't a law on the books like that in all 50 states already, then add that shit to the "common sense" gun laws

we are already lacking in. 

 

Please stop comparing guns to cars. Cars are regulated and have to have training and insurance. 

Plus they serve an actual purpose other than to kill. 

 

2 hours ago, T-Dub said:

 

It's funny how pointing out the hysteria around "assault rifles" is seen as a "sore, sticking point."   If you want "common sense" gun law reforms you need to apply some common sense to the problem.  Pardon me for not silently approving of all the WARGLBARGL! on the topic.  If you'd like me to STFU and let the circlejerk in here go on uninterrupted just say so.  :P

 

Again, I don't know all of the particulars, but when I read and hear from people that fought in wars 

compare guns to shit they used in war, I do not think they should be in the publics hands so easily.

They should be treated like other weapons of war. Period. 

 

If they're not flat out banned from being owned and manufactured, then they sure as fuck should

only be legally obtained by people that are shown worthy of such power. Same goes for high capacity

magazines. If you think that isn't "common sense" and is a "circlejerk" then we will never agree on this topic.

 

 

2 hours ago, T-Dub said:

A law about how guns are to be secured might make sense, but having them locked in a safe & unloaded would remove any self-defense value. It's also something that would have to be enforced after the fact, because good luck sending agents door to door demanding to inspect people's gun collections.  If you want to make all the 3% militia kooks go full retard that'd be the way to do it.  That's definitely not going to reduce gun violence.

 

 

Well, just like with every other law, it's only illegal and you pay the price when caught.

If you don't want to unload and lock you shit away because of self defense and someone

in your family gets them and kills a family member or shoots up someplace, then you sure 

as fuck should be liable. I'm tired of the kooks wanting society to conform to their love of guns.

You want the power and the good and bad that comes with it, then you should conform to make

shit safer for us all. Because bullets don't ask you what the fuck your views are before they blow your brains out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oldschooler said:

 

 

Please stop comparing guns to cars. Cars are regulated and have to have training and insurance. 

Plus they serve an actual purpose other than to kill. 

 

It was just an example as far as legal precedent for something you own legally being used without your consent for something illegal.  It could be a knife or garden gnome or whatever if you prefer.

 

However.. Guns are regulated.  Not as much as they should be, I agree.  Cars do serve another purpose, but as far as that goes.. Is there any reason people should be allowed to own one that goes over 80mph? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, T-Dub said:

 

It was just an example as far as legal precedent for something you own legally being used without your consent for something illegal.  It could be a knife or garden gnome or whatever if you prefer.

 

However.. Guns are regulated.  Not as much as they should be, I agree.  Cars do serve another purpose, but as far as that goes.. Is there any reason people should be allowed to own one that goes over 80mph? 

 

 

 

The next time someone goes into a school or other mundane place and murders dozens of people

with a knife, garden gnome or even a car that goes over 80 mph, it will be the first time.

The things do not equate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...