Biden to take a flurry of actions on gun control

[Tatetopa]

8 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

The left has already abandoned consistency so why should the right now be forced to follow it at their detriment

Because 2 stupid people do not solve any more  problems than 1 does.  Might be better arguing for the left to be consistent rather than joining them in the mouth breather club watching their world fall apart around them. .

[DarkHunter]

Just now, Tatetopa said:

Because 2 stupid people do not solve any more  problems than 1 does.  Might be better arguing for the left to be consistent rather than joining them in the mouth breather club watching their world fall apart around them. .

In theory that is nice but in reality that doesnt work.  As long as one party is willing and able to do what the other party hesitates or refuses to do on the non-material ground of ideological consistency that party will be at a severe disadvantage and lose more often then not.

[Myles]

30 minutes ago, the13bats said:

 

 you dont like my idea of passing a test and mental screening to own guns 

I don't like it because it would give power to someone who may not be trustworthy.  If he leans right, they could deny people they feel are left-leaning and the other way around.   I haven't seen any type of plan on how it would work.   

[zep73]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

Here's the thing.  In the USA the bad guys have guns.  Gun control laws aren't going to prevent them from having guns.  If you are in a situation in which you have to protect your family or yourself you can call the police but they are only going to arrive on time to write a report 99% of the time.  You should be able to tend to your own safety and owning a gun to protect yourself is one of the boxes to tic to achieve that.  You don't have to like it.  I personally don't feel the need but understand that others do and I support their right to do so.

2 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

I mean that's what's great about it. "The Great Equalizer".

It does not matter if you're smaller, elderly, a woman, disabled, or outnumbered. With a firearm you still have an equal chance to protect yourself. 

Instead of just the biggest preying on others.

I must admit, those are good arguments.

But.... I would counter-argue that we should strive for non-lethal weapons instead, like tasers and pepper-sprays. Hopefully there will be even more efficient options in the future.

[+OverSword]

4 minutes ago, zep73 said:

I must admit, those are good arguments.

But.... I would counter-argue that we should strive for non-lethal weapons instead, like tasers and pepper-sprays. Hopefully there will be even more efficient options in the future.

I can't begin to tell you how many times tasers or pepper spray did not work on someone on the news here.  Remember Jacob Blake, shot in the back and crippled by the police in Wisconsin?  He was tazed, peppered sprayed punched, kicked, etc but it didn't stop him.  What if that guy was coming after your mother?  Wouldn't you want her to have a gun?  

Edited April 8, 2021 by OverSword

[DarkHunter]

1 minute ago, zep73 said:

But.... I would counter-argue that we should strive for non-lethal weapons instead, like tasers and pepper-sprays. Hopefully there will be even more efficient options in the future.

Pepper sprays are easily blocked by goggles and using it isnt like in movies or how most people imagine it.  While the concentration is higher in the direct spray it does create a cloud that effects everyone in the area, including the person who used it.  The effect is normally less severe but still there.

As for tasers those are still lethal, less so then guns but still lethal.  But those are also limited to either generally being 1 shot or requiring the person to be in grappling range.  Even then tasers arent always effective depending on the clothing the person is wearing, how or where the taser hits, or if the person is on the right drugs.

[zep73]

7 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I can't begin to tell you how many times tasers or pepper spray did not work on someone on the news here.  Remember Jacob Blake, shot in the back and crippled by the police in Wisconsin?  He was tazed, peppered sprayed punched, kicked, etc but it didn't stop him.  What if that guy was coming after your mother?  Wouldn't you want her to have a gun?  

5 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Pepper sprays are easily blocked by goggles and using it isnt like in movies or how most people imagine it.  While the concentration is higher in the direct spray it does create a cloud that effects everyone in the area, including the person who used it.  The effect is normally less severe but still there.

As for tasers those are still lethal, less so then guns but still lethal.  But those are also limited to either generally being 1 shot or requiring the person to be in grappling range.  Even then tasers arent always effective depending on the clothing the person is wearing, how or where the taser hits, or if the person is on the right drugs.

I guess lethal force is the only thing You can count on. That's so sad.

Edited April 8, 2021 by zep73

[Myles]

5 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Pepper sprays are easily blocked by goggles and using it isnt like in movies or how most people imagine it.  While the concentration is higher in the direct spray it does create a cloud that effects everyone in the area, including the person who used it.  The effect is normally less severe but still there.

As for tasers those are still lethal, less so then guns but still lethal.  But those are also limited to either generally being 1 shot or requiring the person to be in grappling range.  Even then tasers arent always effective depending on the clothing the person is wearing, how or where the taser hits, or if the person is on the right drugs.

I remember when I bought my daughter a peeper spray keychain.   I wanted to make sure it worked.   I was in the store parking lot. I sprayed it and a gust of wind blew it back into my face.   That was awful.   

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, zep73 said:

I guess lethal power is the only thing You can count on. That's so sad.

It's all just argument for "why guns" but the truth is most people will never need one.  You don't know who will but chances are you won't.  However I always think about countries like Australia or England, out of all of the people who have been murdered there how many of those victims wish they had a gun?  Probably 100% of them.

[Myles]

2 minutes ago, zep73 said:

I guess lethal force is the only thing You can count on. That's so sad.

Since the criminals have guns, guns are best for us law-abiding folks to have as well.

We have no control of the southern border, so guns would still be had by criminals even after many years.   It's not like we'd just have to wait 10-20 years and many of the criminals guns will be confiscated, break or be lost.  

[spartan max2]

17 minutes ago, zep73 said:

I must admit, those are good arguments.

But.... I would counter-argue that we should strive for non-lethal weapons instead, like tasers and pepper-sprays. Hopefully there will be even more efficient options in the future.

It's more of a value thing for me. Which I know is hard for many people to understand, especially from other cultures.

Statistically it may even be true that a total effective gun ban would lead to some reduction in deaths nationality each year (thought I wouldn't believe it to be that significant of a reduction)

But it just wouldn't feel right to me to deny someone the choice of their own security. Leaving the results of a confrontation more up to genetics than anything. 

When Obama did a gun study during his term the CDC did find that there were hundreds of thousands of times that people used fire arms in self defense during a year. 

However, I do support some measure of gun control. For example Red Flag Laws I'm behind 100 percent. Red flag laws are similar to how people can be pink slipped into a psych ward if determined to be a threat to themselves or others from mental illness.

But with Red Flag Laws you would be able to take an individual's guns if they are ruled to be showing a ton of red flags. Like if it seems like a kids about to go on a shooting sprees you could report it and they could take the kids guns away. (I say kid as on young adult)

Edited April 8, 2021 by spartan max2

[zep73]

4 minutes ago, OverSword said:

It's all just argument for "why guns" but the truth is most people will never need one.  You don't know who will but chances are you won't.  However I always think about countries like Australia or England, out of all of the people who have been murdered there how many of those victims wish they had a gun?  Probably 100% of them.

4 minutes ago, Myles said:

Since the criminals have guns, guns are best for us law-abiding folks to have as well.

We have no control of the southern border, so guns would still be had by criminals even after many years.   It's not like we'd just have to wait 10-20 years and many of the criminals guns will be confiscated, break or be lost.  

3 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

It's more of a value thing for me. Which I know is hard for many people to understand, especially from other cultures.

Statistically it may even be true that a total effective gun ban would lead to some reduction in deaths nationality each year (thought I wouldn't believe it to be that significant of a reduction)

But it just wouldn't feel right to me to deny someone the choice of their own security. Leaving the results of a confrontation more up to genetics than anything. 

When Obama did a gun study during his term the CDC did find that there were hundreds of thousands of times that people used fire arms in self defense during a year. 

However, I do support some measure of gun control. For example Red Flag Laws I'm behind 100 percent. Red flag laws are similar to how people can be pink slipped into a psych ward if determined to be a threat to themselves or others from mental illness.

But with Red Flag Laws you would be able to take an individual's guns if they are ruled to be showing a ton of red flags. Like if it seems like a kids about to go on a shooting sprees you could report it and they could take the kids guns away. (I say kid as on young adult)

Sadly, You are right. It wouldn't be fair to law abiding citizens to disarm them.

[the13bats]

39 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Now moving on to personal attacks but you arent getting defensive at all.  Also rather sad attempt at trying to put words in my mouth, guess that is the best you can do when the data doesnt back your argument.

Sorry you feel personally attacked its not my intention and i have no clue why besides you trolling you keep saying im defensive, if it makes you feel better to believe that go nuts.

Slick, i dont have "data" you cant grasp i dont care that much about this subject in fact after this im stepping out of this gun topic i have no interest here, i have arguement only opinion that gun owners should be required certification and a license.

 

16 minutes ago, Myles said:

I don't like it because it would give power to someone who may not be trustworthy.  If he leans right, they could deny people they feel are left-leaning and the other way around.   I haven't seen any type of plan on how it would work.   

I understand your paranoia and someone else might be just as concerned some right-leaner would hand out gun certifications to every goat boy looney who wants to storm the capital

No, i do not have the plan worked out thats above my pay rate but it could be worked out where everyone who was eligible for guns could get them and loonies would be denied the only people who would hate it would be nutballs and radicals who think its someone infringing on their rights, you need a license to drive, hunt, fish, etc theres no reason not to have gun licenses.

You guys know my opinions i know yours im going to leave gun talk to you guys who care about it, if your ego demands you getting in the last word on me thats fine.