butthead aka 216

i am actually for a registry of sorts


lord, heres the thing about ownin a gun that i think everyone can agree on

1) there are situations in life where havin a gun would be preferable and possibly life preserving
2) there are situations where havin a good could save my life; not havin a gun would result in death
3) i could accidentally shoot myself or do somethin stupid
4) if i am responsible and careful the chance of that happenin is 0



so what i am sayin is that your entire argument is basically based on a gun owner bein an irresponsible person. and this prob isnt a good argument but just havin the gun on you makes u feel more secure and confident.



lol@ hillary clinton and pretty much all politicians who say they wanna ban guns. hey guys lets ban guns oh btw say hi to my armed personal guards. these people have no perspective whatsoever

Lord Larehip

I've gone over this so many times, I don't know what else I can post anymore.

Ditto.

That's like saying if you drive carefully there is zero chance of getting in an accident. It simply isn't true. Everyone who has ever shot himself by accident has said the same thing--"Won't ever happen to me." Famous last words, we call it.

This is the essence of my argument. If people bought guns with the understanding that these things don't make them safer and may kill them or someone close to them but are willing to take the chance, the accidents would be reduced because fewer people would buy them. By making it sound like a gun is the answer to our fears, the NRA only guarantees more needless gun deaths will raking in record profits for the arms industry.

I never said anything of the sort. I have no problem with hunters owning guns or even people who like to go out and target shoot. I have a problem with people who believe packing heat will protect them. It doesn't and it puts people around them at risk. It may make them "feel more secure and confident" as you write but feeling and being are, of course, completely different things.

More NRA nonsense.

You are referring to the signing of an Arms Trade Treaty where the illegal international sale of conventional arms was being targeted by the UN. That treaty was finalized last March and approved 154 to 3. The US is officially for it. Only Iran, Syria and North Korea are against it. The treaty is not in force at this time and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2nd amendment. It deals ONLY with the ILLEGAL trade of arms INTERNATIONALLY.

The Obama administration made clear that US approval of the treaty was contingent upon the the UN's recognition that the treaty has no impact upon the 2nd amendment or upon any US gun laws. The UN agreed. In fact, the treaty stipulates "the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms" within its territory.

Moreover, there is no legal precedent for such a treaty bypassing or usurping the normal legislative process of Congress. So in order to the US to sign the treaty, a 2/3 majority in Congress is required first. If Congress refuses, the US cannot sign the treaty (which requires 50 such signatures and currently has, to the best of my knowledge, none).

There is no legal precedent that would allow any administration to ban all firearms in the US through the signing of an international treaty and the Supreme Court has already ruled on this very point (Reid v. Covert, 1957). Nor can the signing of an international treaty suspend or usurp a constitutionally guaranteed right. Feel free to ignore the following the link:

snopes.com: U.N. Arms Trade Treaty

butthead aka 216

for the last part im not talkin about any treaty or law or whatever. i just lol @ people (mainly liberals) who speak against guns and yet benefit from their protection

Freebase Dali

Your analogy is flawed. If the careful driver is supposed to represent the responsible gun owner, and your argument is that no one can be completely faultless and therefore susceptible to accident, then you are are making an argument about an inherent human trait that does not simply nullify itself selectively through different modes of fatal action. For instance, if you submit that there are no perfect drivers, and that some will cause accidents no matter how prepared that driver thinks they are, then you should probably go over the statistics in accidental gun deaths versus vehicle deaths and start campaigning about cars instead. You won't, because you're not arguing anything more than a personal perspective that doesn't jive with what you want to make it seem like you're campaigning for.

I agree with this in part. Particularly your "understanding" thing in terms of the fact that owning a gun can be just as dangerous as being threatened by one. But you're lumping everyone together. You're assuming that all gun owners are witless idiots whose entire perspective of firearms has been spawned by movies they've seen where the bullets don't run out and only the bad guys get hurt. I won't go as far as to say that isn't the case in many scenarios, but I also won't go as far as to say that there are no responsible people out there that your apparent "inevitability", from what it seems you're pushing, will be automatically applied. If you understand anything about the level of responsibility that goes into any action at all, and how it varies from person to person, group to group, you know that such generalizations cannot be made.

While I don't the the NRA is the chief arbiter of gun deaths, I do agree with you that people who don't understand the responsibility of owning a lethal firearm are destined to be another statistic for you to generalize across the entirety of all gun owners in the U.S... because let's face it, the kinds of statistics that support a person's own perspectives are really the only kinds of statistics that most people pay attention to anyway.


What makes a hunter or target shooter inherently more safe and responsible with guns? Are you simply talking about people who either open or conceal carry? Or are you speaking about gun owners in general. You have officially confused the hell out of me. Is it your position that if you're a hunter or a target shooter, you're inherently infallible in regard to gun safety, or that if you're an open or concealed carrier, you're inherently fallible in regard to it and will shoot your toes off or someone else's? Do you think guns are an effective defense at all? If not, how do you feel about police? Are they infallible? Should lives be subject to the logistics of when such an officer arrives at the scene?

I get your position about people who want to "feel safer" with a gun. And I totally agree that those people, without proper training and perspective on such a responsibility are likely to cause more problems than they would have otherwise. But again, I'm not going to sit here and say that's the case 100 percent of the time. And if we're using statistical data as evidence for an argument created from what is ultimately better for the country at large, then I think we are DEFINITELY looking in the wrong place. At least for now!

__________________

Cuthbert

Another mass shooting in America - Chicago park shootings: 11 shot and child in critical condition | World news | theguardian.com

That will be the 255th mass shooting in the US this year (defined as four or more people shot in a single incident). Nearly one a day. But lots of guns make the US a safer place.

Every American should carry a gun and then nobody will get shot dead, more guns = fewer deaths. Simple really.

butthead aka 216

well why dont we just ask the nice gunmen and mass murderers to hand in their guns, that will work right??

gangs are known to cooperate with law enforcement so lets just ask nicely for gangsters to stop shootin people and give up their gun



sarcasm aside, the way to stop a bad guy with a gun = a good guy with a gun

Cuthbert

I don't know what the solution is. Guns seem to be entrenched into American life, some genies can't be put back into the bottle.

I personally find it staggering with statistics like that people actually want more guns, though.

butthead aka 216

i want more guns for responsible ppl and i know there isnt a stamp on everyones forehead sayin whether they are responsible or not. i will disagree with most of the gun community and say i do agree with registering guns and background checks.

but you cant put the genie back in the bottle. so many liberal morons just flat out dont understand this. there are goin to be shootings in this country. there are millions of guns in circulation.

my defense of havin a gun and allowing ppl to own a gun is the fact that i should be able to defend myself if needed. there is no tellin how many people have been saved of violent crimes simply because they had a gun on them. it makes no sense to disarm the good guys and not the bad guys since that would not be possible

Unknown Soldier

Trying to convince your average American that guns are not the solution, is like trying to convince a kleptomanic that thieving doesn't pay.

__________________
Metal Wars

Power Metal

Pounding Decibels- A Hard and Heavy History

butthead aka 216

why dont u tell us the solution