• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 5 votes

Gun Ownership

guns handguns massacre shooting gun control security mass shooting rights us law gun law handguns gun law

  • Please log in to reply
177 replies to this topic

Poll: life extension and guns (75 member(s) have cast votes)

Private ownership of handguns should be..

  1. outlawed (10 votes [13.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.33%

  2. highly restricted (12 votes [16.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.00%

  3. restricted somewhat (16 votes [21.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.33%

  4. largely unrestricted (32 votes [42.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 42.67%

  5. other (5 votes [6.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.67%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#151 Lister

  • Member, Moderator
  • 390 posts
  • 131
  • Location:Kelowna, Canada

Posted 04 May 2013 - 10:27 PM

We were in the 150s on responses. I will need to go back to my own archives to see what has happened here.Seems posts have been removed. But yes I believe we have made good points on both sides.


Doesn't look like anything was hidden; it was probably one of the other mods coming through and cleaning up anything they found off topic (wasn't me as I'm too involved).

Anyways, back on topic: There is a pretty noticeable decrease in gun ownership in the states. We can talk about Gun Control all we want but what happens if people just decide to stop buying guns? What happens in the majority decide that guns are not needed and that leaves only the mentally ill, the disturbed, the angry, and the violent to own guns? At that point is gun control acceptable? Of course leaving out states that have serious crime issues; where people still feel the need to own guns for self defense.

Edited by Lister, 04 May 2013 - 10:29 PM.


#152 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,205 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 11 May 2013 - 12:35 PM

In the seventies I would have been all for English or Canadian style gun control for the US because the government didn't seem to have totalitarian tendencies. This would have saved lives. There was half a chance that the laws would have been applied sanely, and that criminals might have had much less access to guns.

Now, I don't know. The US government is abusing it's powers, and seems to be getting worse. There is a ten year low in prosecutions of violations of the existing gun laws by the Federal Government. (Source: Democracy Now) Hmmm. We gave guns to Mexican cartels to shoot our our own border patrol agents. Some of the mass shootings might be staged false flag incidents. Law enforcement on all levels has basically given up trying to really do anything about a lot of crimes, so how would that impact gun law enforcements?

Possibly one of the things stopping a jack-booted fascist federal takeover is the sobering fact that Americans are twitchy and heavily armed. One of the things fueling rational people to own guns is crime and the lack of effective law enforcement. I'd say do something real about crime and the erosion of civil rights, and the gap between rich and poor, the plutocracy, runaway inflation, and mismanagement of the environment. These fuel crime, unrest, and doomsday visions. After that you might stand more of a chance of getting rational people's guns away.

Theoretically, right now you could ban assault weapons, do mental health and background checks on prospective gun owners, and institutionalize dangerous mentally ill people. All of those powers can be abused, however. If a preschool child is suspended from school under a "zero tolerance policy" because he formed his hand into a gun, what would compromise and an automatic weapon? A nail gun? Whatever the police say it is in that moment and good luck getting any one to listen to you. Stuff like this is happening right now. What would constitute a dangerous mentally ill person? Would the batman shooter maybe have gone free while an inconvenient dissident might locked up without a trial?

It costs around a thousand dollars a day to hospitalize someone. Who will pay for that? Whose agenda will be worth a thousand dollars a day per nut case forever? Right now protecting innocent kids lives isn't worth that kind of money. Why would it be worth it later? If someone got a call from the President's Office about a rowdy whistleblower with too much information who was "dangerous" and "threatening to shoot people," a favor to a President is worth the money, and besides, the person is "dangerous."

An FBI whistleblower is just starting a thirty month prison sentence for whistleblowing, prosecuted by the Obama administration. He says he is proud to do it. The Obama Administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than President Bush. (Source: Democracy Now)

The theories of gun control have to be held up against the reality of the those who would enforce them. Do you want the people who are responsible for Airport Security and the No Fly List to have more power?


To add more to this point (which is really a commentary on how comparing the U.S. to other countries is "apples-to-oranges"), the U.S. government under Bush and now EVEN MORE under Obama is restricting freedom, stomping on civil rights, increasingly violent, and growing out of control. How many other countries have a government that purchases targets for shooting practice comprised of grandmas, pregnant women, and children? Or practices for terror-shooting events by simulating "angry parents" taking over a school? I venture to guess there are no other governments of advanced nations who do this. Not Canada. Not Australia. Not Switzerland. This is just to give you an idea of how different it is in the U.S. nowadays. It is not unreasonable for some people to be scared of or wary of the government.
  • like x 3
  • dislike x 1

#153 Shepard

  • Guest, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 19 May 2013 - 12:22 AM

I'm not sure where I stand on gun control....however, I had no idea how easy it was to legally purchase a gun in my state until I bought my first one recently. Obtaining a license to carry is an equally laughable process. The background check for a coaching certification is significantly more intensive and I have to provide more documentation to cancel my gym membership than I did to walk out with the gun. I could have walked out with an AR-50 just as easily if I had given them the money. I'm not saying they should or should not have more regulation, but I can say that my previous opinion on the matter was ill-informed.

On a somewhat similar topic, I once sold a book via Amazon to John Lott. In fact, I sold him his own book on gun control. I thought it was odd that an author was buying his own book from me, but whatever. I send him the book and a couple weeks later, he sends me a message asking what he is supposed to do with the book. He is still under the impression that I sent him the book to be autographed and did not include return postage. I tried five times to explain to him that he had paid me for the book via Amazon, but he was somehow unable to comprehend such an event. Still the weirdest book sale I've been involved in.

Edited by Shepard, 19 May 2013 - 12:26 AM.

  • like x 2

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#154 gwgaston

  • Guest
  • 526 posts
  • 58
  • Location:USA

Posted 19 May 2013 - 09:05 AM

Some states do have pretty much nothing but a fee for Concealed Carried. Mine requires an 8 hrs course with range and written test.You are also then finger printed and registered with state law enforcement. They will check your prints with the Feds before issuing the permit. This could be a deterrent in itself to do the right thing. So yes some states require more than others. I can conceal carry in 37 states and its states like Utah and Georgia that just require the fee. Personally I think everyone that carries should go through the courses. Yes most states have PDFs with all their rules and regulations on their websites, but an instructor will go over all the important information about when you can and can't use pull your weapon. I highly recommend anyone carrying to take them.
  • like x 1

#155 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,938 posts
  • 1,612
  • Location:New York

Posted 19 May 2013 - 12:22 PM

If a registration and vetting process should be required for a concealed carry permit, then why not the same process for all guns?

My concealed carry is a knife. The blade is longer than local law allows, as is the locking blade. Useful for cutting tire boots if I get a sidewall puncture on my bike.

I'm trying to imagine a situation where I'd need a concealed pistol. Bernie Goetz comes to mind. A coworker of mine carried a a gun on the Philadelphia subway. He said he didn't feel as nervous stepping over the bums sleeping on the stairs. None of them ever threatened him as far as I know. Good thing too. For them and him.

I own a shotgun in the country. Foxes, gophers. A bear was sighted back on the hill behind a neighbor's house. Useful. People, not so much. But it's just as effective for most purposes as a ten round clip in an automatic weapon; you don't have to aim it, it sprays a pretty broad swath so instead to 10 shots, one gets anyone or thing in the general direction. Though painful, buckshot is less likely lethal than bullets when shot into a crowd. Damn, I find I'm agreeing with Bumblecrat Joe Biden about shotguns for defense. My carpenter owns an automatic pistol grip rifle, and he is might pissed at the governor's legislation that just outlawed his toy. Why he wants it seems to be a macho thing; his wife wouldn't marry him if he went to fight in Iraq, so he's making up for the frustration.

A conversation in a pizza joint: "In a home invasion, you need a clip with multiple rounds...." He was defending himself in his mind, not planning to be the invader. I think. (He was an orthodox Jew in a yarmulka.) In a home invasion you're not likely to get your weapon out in time to make a difference. And why would one fear a home invasion unless one is in the drug business? Or lives next door to someone who is, and mistaken identity leads to invasion by another gang.... or as likely the police.

I don't know about the South, but in New England people kept their guns in the town armory most of the time. In the 19th century west, most towns required you check your guns with the sheriff when you rode in, and when you sobered up to ride out you got them back. Probably prevented a lot of mayhem.

Second amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


What well regulated militia does anyone belong to? Do States and towns need a militia to protect against foreign invasion, or the federal government? (The government has far more subtle and effective ways of coercing the population. They won't have to come for you; you'll go willingly.)

Not advocating any particular point of view, just making some observations.

#156 gwgaston

  • Guest
  • 526 posts
  • 58
  • Location:USA

Posted 19 May 2013 - 06:30 PM

@maxxwatt

See where you stand under "Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes"

http://uscode.house....d/pls/10C13.txt

I have no real concerns or comments to make about militias though I will just say I do support State Defense Forces and Guards (statedefenseforce.com).

Since you do have an issue with terminology... I will link you to something to help you with "clips"

http://www.minuteman...in-firearm.html

I really rely upon my home security system and dog for heads up. I sleep locked and loaded. I have very personal reasons for what I do, but another reason I can share is long walks down rural back roads for exercise where we have a coyote problem. It's not always about people.

Last post from me here unless there is some new bill to discuss. If its not for you by all means don't do it. I will carry until the laws tell me I can't AND they come to my house and get my guns.

Edited by gwgaston, 19 May 2013 - 06:49 PM.

  • like x 1

#157 hlgaskins

  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Florida

Posted 28 June 2013 - 05:13 PM

"There is some truth in the arguments of the gun lobby, in that guns do not kill, but people do."

It's true guns don't kill, but stupid, ignorant, and angry people with guns kill all the time. The NRA attempts to narrow the converation by repeating simplistic talking points over and over again as if those are the complete list of concerns. As a result high percentages of people are convinced that if we just keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and enforce the current laws to keep criminals off the street the problem would somehow be resolved. Never mind that it's virtually iimpossible to identify the vast majority of people with mental illnesses, and gun laws are vitually pointless because there are too many loopholes allowing the purchase of guns and inconsistencies in state laws. If you do a little research on gun deaths in states with laxed laws and high gun ownership, compared to states with stricter gun control laws and low gun ownership then you will quickly discover that those with stricter gun control laws consistently have lower rates of gun deaths, which completely refutes the notion that we are safer with a society full of packing gunowners.

My concern with loose gun laws as I mentioned above, is that there are too many stupid angry people who outnumber the menatlly ill and criminals to perhaps thousands to one, and who also have easy access to guns. To demonsrate how easy it is to buy a gun in Florida I did a little web search, and in less than 10 minutes I happened upon a website, armslist (dot) com. It's a site loaded with so-called private sellers who are legally allowed to sell a gun without the requirements of a background check of any kind. In a matter of minutes I located a person who lives nearby selling an M4 with a 30 round magazine and a 42 round magazine. The M4 has just been adopted by the U.S army but apparently I could've gotten my hands on one before the army did. In fact I could've purchased dozens of assault rifles with oversized clips all at once, and then packed them into the trunk of a car and drove them to New York to sell to criminals for a sizable profit. So yes I support stricter gun control laws to include the registration of a serial number of a weapon so that it can tracked, universal background checks,training and licensing for concealed weapons, and a complete ban on weapons designed for war.

Edited by hlgaskins, 28 June 2013 - 05:13 PM.

  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#158 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 60
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 17 August 2013 - 10:46 PM

"Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States."

"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."

This is a new CDC study commissioned by Obama.

http://www.guns.com/...ocking-results/

http://www.nap.edu/o...d=18319&page=R1
  • like x 2

#159 hlgaskins

  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Florida

Posted 18 August 2013 - 12:14 AM

So how about a link to the actual CDC study's published results, because linking to sites such as guns.com is like linking to FOX NEWS and Karl Rove's "math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better" while denying that Ohio was called for Obama in a national election. The other link requires you to purchase the study or go with whatever you hear. If this study was of any value it would've been reported by every news agency in the country, especially FOX NEWS. So I'll step back until this staggering news becomes national and provable.
  • dislike x 3

#160 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 60
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 18 August 2013 - 06:01 AM

You can read the entire study at the nap.edu link. I can't find a better link for a summary, this study is being ignored by the mainstream media except the washington post, which doesn't have a good summary anyway.
  • like x 1
  • Informative x 1

#161 mehisa

  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 2
  • Location:u.s
  • NO

Posted 10 September 2013 - 07:25 AM

As a single guy i want the freedom to carry I dont care about the "good" of the nation if it impedes my own risk of life by not being able to defend myself.
  • Good Point x 1

#162 Layberinthius

  • Guest
  • 298 posts
  • 26
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 13 September 2013 - 04:32 AM

Just buy a machete, you need one to use around the house anyway inorder to cut back weeds and they are used to great effect in defending the homestead from invaders, ontop of that its very difficult to kill yourself with one.

#163 N.T.M.

  • Guest
  • 640 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Reno, NV

Posted 15 September 2013 - 07:47 PM

From what I've read, contrary to common opinion, there seems to be an inverse correlation between the laxity of gun laws and the level of crime. What's odd is that outlawing guns would affect those who obey the law most (as evidenced by their compliance). You have to realize that the premise behind outlawing guns is that it prevents harm, but harm only occurs from those who deliberately disobey the law (excluding accidents), in which case the targeted group would be the group for which it's least effective. Moreover, you encourage crime by disarming those who would otherwise be able to defend themselves.

Everything about it seems illogical to me.
  • Good Point x 1

#164 hlgaskins

  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Florida

Posted 26 September 2013 - 02:34 AM

The reality is that in countries where gun ownership is well regulated gun deaths go down including deaths from suicide. The United States makes up less than 5% of the world's population and yet we have "35–50 per cent of the world's civilian-owned guns." "The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the highest per capita rate of firearm-related murders of all developed countries (keywords being developed countries)."

The NRA would have us believe that gun control laws will take guns away from sensible law abiding citizens which is utter nonsense. Sensible gun control laws only limit access to those who shouldn't have guns, and I'm not talking about crazy people, I'm talking about angry stupid people which the United States seems to have an abundance of. As for sensible law abiding citizens, get checked out, buy your guns, holster them while walking around your living room in your underwear, and use them wisely.

#165 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 60
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 26 September 2013 - 08:09 AM

The NRA would have us believe that gun control laws will take guns away from sensible law abiding citizens which is utter nonsense. Sensible gun control laws only limit access to those who shouldn't have guns, and I'm not talking about crazy people, I'm talking about angry stupid people which the United States seems to have an abundance of. As for sensible law abiding citizens, get checked out, buy your guns, holster them while walking around your living room in your underwear, and use them wisely.


Well, it sounds sensible when you put it that way. However, that's not by any means the limit of proposed gun control legislation, it's just the first. If you wish to see the direction in which this is going, you can look at the gun control laws in california or nyc or DC for instance.

DC, where spent casings are considered ammunition and illegal to possess unless you have a permit.
http://washingtonexa...article/2535216
  • like x 1
  • Informative x 1

#166 hlgaskins

  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Florida

Posted 26 September 2013 - 02:36 PM

You really aren't going to win any debate points by posting articles from The Washington Examiner, a conservative opinion (not news) magazine not known for its veracity.

The D.C casings arrests claim to my knowledge has never been reported by a single reputable news source, because the cassings claim us a quote from a book (Emily Gets Her Gun) written by conservative Emily Miller. Her book has been examined and found to be full of distortions. I will however give it a chance by reviewing the distortion claims before commenting further on it.

Exactly what specific points don't you like about the California and New York gun control laws? And don't forget Colorado!

#167 jack black

  • Guest
  • 1,286 posts
  • 40
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 11 October 2017 - 06:22 PM

the answer the OP questions:

 

Owning a gun is often explained as a security precaution- should every immortalist own one?

Yet guns kill people - is curtailing their proliferation a life extension priority?

 

is rather simple considering that most gun deaths are suicides and gun owners have shorter lives:

 

https://www.quora.co...es-not-own-guns



#168 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,692 posts
  • -113
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 11 October 2017 - 06:54 PM

the answer the OP questions:

 

Owning a gun is often explained as a security precaution- should every immortalist own one?

Yet guns kill people - is curtailing their proliferation a life extension priority?

 

is rather simple considering that most gun deaths are suicides and gun owners have shorter lives:

 

https://www.quora.co...es-not-own-guns

 

If you own anything you can die from it.  Logical fallacy. 

 


  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#169 jack black

  • Guest
  • 1,286 posts
  • 40
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 11 October 2017 - 09:59 PM

 

the answer the OP questions:

 

Owning a gun is often explained as a security precaution- should every immortalist own one?

Yet guns kill people - is curtailing their proliferation a life extension priority?

 

is rather simple considering that most gun deaths are suicides and gun owners have shorter lives:

 

https://www.quora.co...es-not-own-guns

 

If you own anything you can die from it.  Logical fallacy. 

 

 

except gun owners die sooner, duh!

 

can't say the same for knife owners or rope owners.

 



#170 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,692 posts
  • -113
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 11 October 2017 - 10:33 PM

 

 

the answer the OP questions:

 

Owning a gun is often explained as a security precaution- should every immortalist own one?

Yet guns kill people - is curtailing their proliferation a life extension priority?

 

is rather simple considering that most gun deaths are suicides and gun owners have shorter lives:

 

https://www.quora.co...es-not-own-guns

 

If you own anything you can die from it.  Logical fallacy. 

 

 

except gun owners die sooner, duh!

 

can't say the same for knife owners or rope owners.

 

 

Dear Duh, I said if you own anything you can die from it.  Is this not true?  Evidence that gun owners die sooner than anyone that owns anything else?.


  • Disagree x 1

#171 Keizo

  • Guest
  • 389 posts
  • 27
  • Location:Sweden
  • NO

Posted 01 December 2017 - 04:12 PM

guns in the hands of lunatics (and everyone else) is a long-term good, it allows for faster and more expedient eradication of the lunatics (and we can hope that there is some genetic basis for their behavior)

break a few eggs and you get a better omelette ...



#172 jack black

  • Guest
  • 1,286 posts
  • 40
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 01 December 2017 - 04:37 PM

guns in the hands of lunatics (and everyone else) is a long-term good, it allows for faster and more expedient eradication of the lunatics (and we can hope that there is some genetic basis for their behavior)

break a few eggs and you get a better omelette ...

 

well yes, except for that little detail that those lunatics take a whole lot of good people (including kids) with them, too. don't you read news?


Edited by jack black, 01 December 2017 - 04:38 PM.


#173 dz93

  • Guest
  • 424 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 01 December 2017 - 04:45 PM

guns in the hands of lunatics (and everyone else) is a long-term good, it allows for faster and more expedient eradication of the lunatics (and we can hope that there is some genetic basis for their behavior)
break a few eggs and you get a better omelette ...


well yes, except for that little detail that those lunatics take a whole lot of good people (including kids) with them, too. don't you read news?

Come on now, we don't know for sure that they were good people. Some could have been rapists. Or grown up to be rapists. There's a lot of rapers out there now a days. Haven't you seen the news?
  • Cheerful x 1

#174 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,692 posts
  • -113
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 01 December 2017 - 05:18 PM

Some are using trucks, knives and bombs to kill.  Outlaw the killers and gang headbangers not  legal citizens who are not commuting crimes.  Guns are like anything else, they can be used to kill.  It is a human problem.  Look at the NRA stats, they do not commit crimes. 



#175 dz93

  • Guest
  • 424 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 01 December 2017 - 05:21 PM

Some are using trucks, knives and bombs to kill. Outlaw the killers and gang headbangers not legal citizens who are not commuting crimes. Guns are like anything else, they can be used to kill. It is a human problem. Look at the NRA stats, they do not commit crimes.


But what happens when guns become self aware?
  • Good Point x 1

#176 Keizo

  • Guest
  • 389 posts
  • 27
  • Location:Sweden
  • NO

Posted 01 December 2017 - 05:28 PM

 

guns in the hands of lunatics (and everyone else) is a long-term good, it allows for faster and more expedient eradication of the lunatics (and we can hope that there is some genetic basis for their behavior)

break a few eggs and you get a better omelette ...

 

well yes, except for that little detail that those lunatics take a whole lot of good people (including kids) with them, too. don't you read news?

 

We can interpret history in many ways but in the past there were strong efforts to eradicate violent criminals by killing them, and it could be said that it succeeded judging by the much lower crime rates of today. If violent lunatics don't get access to guns they probably won't be as easy to spot and kill, it would be harder to justify their death if they attack someone with their fists (which nevertheless might prove crippling or deadly). In the long run it might be better to pay a price today for less criminals in the future. Of course I can't really tell you to what degree criminality is heritable, so there is some uncertainty in my argument for sure.

 

This guy is a professional rambler but it is interesting:

 

Anyway here in Sweden we quite frequently let out violent rapists and murderers after rather short sentences. If you are generally concerned about innocent people getting killed etc. perhaps you and I could advocate together for a death penalty and abolishment of the inhumane and unnecessary practice of prison sentences. Fines, forced labor or a bullet to the head seem like enough options to me. The fact that life-time prison sentences replace a death penalty at all is itself a risk to public safety.



#177 jack black

  • Guest
  • 1,286 posts
  • 40
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 01 December 2017 - 05:50 PM

Some are using trucks, knives and bombs to kill. 

 

Yes, terrorists who have no access to guns use them alright. The terrorists who have access to guns use them with great skills too.

Now, the US lunatics and their copycats prefer guns (so much easier to kill lots of people in concerts and schools).
 



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#178 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,692 posts
  • -113
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.

Posted 01 December 2017 - 05:57 PM

 

Some are using trucks, knives and bombs to kill. 

 

Yes, terrorists who have no access to guns use them alright. The terrorists who have access to guns use them with great skills too.

Now, the US lunatics and their copycats prefer guns (so much easier to kill lots of people in concerts and schools).
 

 

We put criinimals in jail, not what they use in committing the crime.


  • Good Point x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: guns, handguns, massacre, shooting, gun control, security, mass shooting, rights, us law, gun law, handguns, gun law

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users