gonzomax, it looks to me like you and xtisme are in essence agreeing on that point, that handguns are designed for use against humans. Whether the humans they’re meant to be used against are muggers or opposing soldiers, I’m not sure is germane to this discussion.
Muggers are humans as well. They’re designed to kill. The solution isn’t on the extremes, dammit. Personally, I’d like to see a handgun ban and the repeal of the assault weapon ban. Is that acceptable?
The assault weapons ban can’t be repealed. It had a sunset clause and disappeared in 2004. If it were still in existence, giving up handguns in exchange for a repeal would be a spectacularly bad bargain. Why would I give up the most effective self-defense weapon available in exchange for repeal of a ban on mostly cosmetic features? That’s just dumb.
I’m not in favor of giving anything up at all. We’ve given up too much already. Compromise with anti’s always means the same thing: We give up something, they get part of their agenda enacted. A little later, they’re back wanting us to give up a little more. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
No more deals.
No more compromise.
Let them learn to live with their fears.
Quick a gun thread !
Somebody start talking about cars !
I see we moved on from cars
This gun novice thinks that a firearm is waaaaay better than a club for making people think you have a gun.
Regarding ammo ‘is the same as a firecracker’. Is that really what you think ? And you want a sensible discussion ?
Strange how the people with “fears” seem to feel safe enough that they don’t see the need to walk around packing heat.
It seems to me that they actually attach their fears of the world on inanimate objects and the overwhelming majority of law abiding owners of said objects.
True. But there are also people who attach their sense of security on an inanimate object and feel that they can’t be safe without it.
Well, I’m enough of a man to admit that I’m not entirely comfortable without a can of diet pepsi somewhere around.
Do I need it to feel safe? No; but neither am I inclined to give it up just so pants-wetters can feel safer for a few moments. I’ve given up all I’m going to give up for neurotics who will never, ever feel safe. If all the guns were gone, they’d just start pants-wetting over knives and other edged tools.
Indeed; whatever shall we do with these cowardly pants-wetters who feel so troubled by their worries that they feel the need to go so far as, uh, use the legal process.
If I had to select one side as being pants-wetters, I suspect it might not necessarily come down on those who feel the need to resort to paperwork in order to protect themselves, and perhaps more those who feel the need to buy a or several guns. But I don’t feel that need, because I find myself unwilling to brand one side entirely with an amusing and repetitive insult.
And your inability to be flexible on the matter will only hurt us in the long run. Really, what’s a good compromise to you? I assume you’ll say “none”. Especially because you’ve now said that anyone that doesn’t agree with you is a “pants-wetter”. Really? We’ve got no reason at all to want some kind of restrictions on guns? None at all?
I feel that there is enough restrictions today and that several more could be rolled back with little harm done. I agree that the time for compromise is over. Compromise, is supposed to be a win win for both parties. There is nothing that a gun owner would win while at the same time chipping off another piece if his or her rights. I’d be willing to make some trades, this for that, but I doubt if your typical anti would allow it.
Yes, we do. A sensible discussion would be nice for a change. Which is why something like “Quick a gun thread ! Somebody start talking about cars !” is not a particularly useful contribution.
I get it. Guns are just door stops or paperweights ,that accidentally have a lethal ability.
Target practice is a method which makes you a better and more accurate shot. A better killer.
Most guns are not used to kill people. Most cops never shoot it at a person. Most never pull it out on duty. But we know why they carry it.
Then stop framing the discussion in a way in which nobody can win. What are you willing to give up? Would you be amenable to having all handguns banned?
I agree that the rhetoric (on both sides) poisons the discussion, but I think that you can agree that gun owners do have a certain justification for their anger.
You have ample reason to want restrictions, but to get gun owners on board you can’t use spurious and/or fallacious justification to get those controls in place. We’ve explained numerous times in countless threads why the Assault Weapons Ban was absurd, and what do we get for our trouble? Rhetoric, nonsense, and a desire to re-implement the same ban. How, exactly, is that supposed to placate gun owners? It shows both willful ignorance and total disregard of facts. In other words, it is not an honest debate. You might as well save yourself the trouble of asking us what we think if you’re going to ignore the answers you get and do it anyway.
I am willing to ban nukes, artillery*, WMD, handgrenades, landmines & such and some severe restrictions on full-auto weapons.
*Black powder historical recreations are Ok, though.
I wasn’t speaking about any one individual here and the post I was directly responding to wasn’t yours. I was actually thinking about a guy I used to work with who once told me that he carried a gun everwhere (no joke - he told me he installed a shelf in his shower so he could put a gun up there above the spray).
But now that you’ve pointed it out, I look back and see that you were the person who originally said other people are motivated by their fears. And you apparently are the only person who thought I was talking about them when I said some gun owners might be carrying guns because they’re afraid. I won’t even get into your repeated claims that people wet themselves from fear.
I think it’s a very shaky distinction for their justification, but in the spirit of harmony and Getting Shit Done, I’m more than willing to give it more credence to get to a solution.
And I’m not ignoring the answers. I’ve already told you that the assault rifle ban could be gone so long as we ban handguns. Really, if you want home-defense, I think a shotgun is going to be your best bet, but I’m not a big gun guy at all. Really, if you want the “scary-looking” guns as well as the ones that are functionally the same, then I’m fine with that. So, like I said, let’s meet in the middle somewhere.