Debate about Gun Control

[Classic-Xer]

(10-21-2017, 08:47 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(10-19-2017, 05:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If you want to limit the number of guns in circulation, you crack down on illegal gun sales and destroy the guns that are seized. The cartels/gangs aren't buying their guns from Cabela's or Joe Blows Gun Shop located in Indiana. It ain't like the old days. You haven't bought a gun. You have no clue about the process of buying a gun these days. I can buy a gun. I can buy any gun. I can get a license to carry a hand gun. Why? I've already passed a back ground check several times.

A great first step would be a requirement that all gun sales require a background check ... all of them.  If I sell you a gun and you kill someone, then that falls to me if I skipped that step.  More to the point, we need to know who has guns, so a registration regime is needed too.  Handling this in the same way we handle drivers and motor vehicles would solve both problems: license 'users', title and register the weapons. There is no misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment that would stop either of those from happening.

Classic-Xer Wrote:America said ENOUGH! to terrorism, but that didn't stop it from happening here or stop Muslims from coming here. Think terrorism, think about your view of terrorism vs mine and compare your view of gun violence to mine. Similar? Similar but opposite views pertaining to different issues. I own a gun. I know how to use a gun. I'm pretty good with a gun. A spree shooter in my area would find himself matched up against a gun owner who has the skills to kill them or a formidable presence who could draw their attention away from shooting up a neighborhood and keep them occupied until the police arrive. Now, if you want to continue blaming guns for violence, continue attacking people like me for owning them while ignoring the people who are the problem, that's fine.

Oh really?  First you hammer away at the anti-immigrant memes, then you claim that private firepower can save the day.  I assume you have no experience with this at all.  Go ask a combat vet whether your plan has a snowball's chance in hell of actually working.  FWIW, once the shooting starts, it's the definition of chaos.  Combat units train to work past that, and have tactical tools to make that possible.  Even then, they have death-by-friendly-fire incidents on a regular basis.  I doubt you and your amateur gunners will do 10% as well.

I grew-up and currently live in an area where hunting is common.  If you want to hunt, get a license, follow the rules and go at it.  My next door neighbor is a taxidermist who will be glad to handle the rest.  Just don't tell me that you are acting in my defense or even just your own.  Once you do that, I'm at risk and so are members of my family and friends.

Private gun ownership could save the day. I'm sure there is/ would be confusion, initial shock, initial fear when a situation involving lots of shooting/ mass shooter begins in a place/area where lots of shooting doesn't normally occur. However, if you are capable of adjusting to that situation and capable of using a firearm that's available, one could address the issue or present a problem/threat that such a shooter would have to deal with for obvious reasons.

The question seems to be, am I one who could get over the shock, keep my wits together, summon up the courage, engage and take down a spree shooter or keep them busy until the pro's arrive. I say yes because I know what I'm capable of doing & acting under extreme pressure. I'd have a significant advantage over them at that point. The dude/dudette would be in the unenviable position of dealing with the threat of an experienced hunter who has changed the situation with them. I'm sure there would be a psychological impact and an adjustment that would occur with them when a bullet either hits them or buzzes by them. I'm sure the situation (the confusion, the initial shock/ fear, entry into the unknown) that had already occurred with me would occur with them. A spree shooter would have to adjust to the presence of another shooter who is seriously targeting them. Once I do that, you're at risk and you're family is at risk. The same risk that you and your family and every one else involved were already in. However, the situation you were in would change. The spree shooter would now be at risk too. The spree shooter would have to adjust to defending themselves. The spree shooting would become less as the shooter adjusts to the change with the situation. The risk relating to you and you're family would become lower as well as the shooter adjusts to the presence of a shooter targeting them. Now, if you happen to be living in the home where the spree shooter is near, you'll still be at risk of being shot like you were with the spree shooter but you'd only be facing a few rounds coming from me. Remember, I'll be facing the bulk of the rounds. I'll be trying to kill them or seriously wound them and keeping them hunkered down/ busy until police arrive. I won't be acting like the spree shooter. I have to say, I'm getting tired of the you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't, arm chair (safe place), can't/don't do anything that could hurt me positions that blues tend to use and apply all the time.