Revolvers for Everyone!

  • Thread starter Thread starter TinaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cynic said:
Re"Criminals will always have guns" Ease of access has got to be a factor in whether you’re average gangster wannabe gets hold of a handgun.
Click to expand...
The reason I ask is that we’ve been statistically unable to prove this postulation of your here in the US where the cities and states with the highest rates of gun related violence also have the most restrictive gun ownership regulations, as compared to the cities and state with the least restrictive gun ownership regulations have lowerr rates of gun related violence and crimes.
 
gamewell45 said:
Some people in here tend to inject politics into the discussion and as such, it inhibits rational debate.
Click to expand...
I guess I’m still missing your point, you mean folks excepting you? My comments were no more political than yours have been… :confused: You tried to use that “political” accusation to discount my points for discussion, that seems to me to be the thing most inhibiting to rational debate…
 
cynic said:
more guns sold to the law-abiding = more guns sold secondhand = more guns eventually ending up in the hands of criminals
Click to expand...
More criminals arrested=more homes of criminals searched=more illegally owned weapons returned to law abiding citizens.
 
gamewell45 said:
More guns stolen from gun shop; another reason why we need to prohibit the manufacture of handguns. Police estimate close to 100 guns were stolen from the store.

q13fox.com/news/kcpq-032610-gun-store-robbery,0,2950290.story
Click to expand...
I guess it’d be “political” of me to point out that the report makes mention of 100 or so “guns” yet you jump to the conclusion that we need to prohibit the manufacture of handguns and that would somehow have stopped this crime? I guess it’d “inhibit rational debate” if I ask why you want to prohibit the manufacture of handguns instead of catch and punish the criminals who perpetrated this atrocity? By now all of these guns serial numbers are certainly in the hands of the law enforcement agencies, when the criminals are caught and then released shortly after because we dont want to profile them or violate their rights in any way, or because they grew up under difficult or less advantaged lifestyle conditions than we think humans should have in order to be held responsible for their actions, I see little hope in your approach providing for the safety of me and my family. Oh well, I do have those thoughts and questions on my mind from reading your post as to the conclusions you seemed to automatically jump to in your embellishment of the facts to better suit your message, fortunately I dont have to worry about these facts bothering you, since you’ll only have to invoke the “political” clause and discard my opinion straight away. I’m sure glad to see you are so well able and intentioned as to keep politics out of your views and responses.
 
chriso said:
I guess it’d be “political” of me to point out that the report makes mention of 100 or so “guns” yet you jump to the conclusion that we need to prohibit the manufacture of handguns and that would somehow have stopped this crime? I guess it’d “inhibit rational debate” if I ask why you want to prohibit the manufacture of handguns instead of catch and punish the criminals who perpetrated this atrocity? By now all of these guns serial numbers are certainly in the hands of the law enforcement agencies, when the criminals are caught and then released shortly after because we dont want to profile them or violate their rights in any way, or because they grew up under difficult or less advantaged lifestyle conditions than we think humans should have in order to be held responsible for their actions, I see little hope in your approach providing for the safety of me and my family. Oh well, I do have those thoughts and questions on my mind from reading your post as to the conclusions you seemed to automatically jump to in your embellishment of the facts to better suit your message, fortunately I dont have to worry about these facts bothering you, since you’ll only have to invoke the “political” clause and discard my opinion straight away. I’m sure glad to see you are so well able and intentioned as to keep politics out of your views and responses.
Click to expand...
Chriso,

Thank you for your response.

I have made it very plain in here about my position on handguns and I have stated in here before that I believe that no one needs handguns or automatic weapons to protect themselves, rather I am a proponent of people defending themselves with rifles, shotguns and the like. And its no embellishment on my part. The link comes from a major news source. I’ll only invoke the “political” clause and discard your opinion if you do turn it into a political shell game.

The facts do not bother me, however I think that they do bother most of the pro-handgun owners as evidenced by their many agitated responses here. Since i own no handguns, I have nothing to lose either way. I just don’t think we need them and I’d gladly support any legislation prohibiting ownership/manufacturing of them as well.
 
gamewell45 said:
its no embellishment on my part. The link comes from a major news source.
Click to expand...
This statement is misleading in and of itself. Yes, the link is from a major news source. NO they dont claim the hundred guns stolen were “handguns”… leaping to that conclusion and attempting to get others to believe that this would be a non-event were we to outlaw handgun manufacturing when for all we know the whole purpose of the break in coud have been to steal some 125,000.00 antique double rifle or something of that nature, smacks of this very blind, politically motivated sort of views which you claim render other persons statements non-credible and unworthy of consideration.
gamewell45 said:
I’ll only invoke the “political” clause and discard your opinion if you do turn it into a political shell game.
Click to expand...
Like you and your views against handgun ownership, I too have made no secret of my long time, responsible ownership and use of handguns, yet only 2 days ago in this discussion you attempted to discard my opinions not just for yourself, but apparantly for anyone who might happen to read your comments, purely because you judged them “political”. It appears you really mean that when others views differ from yours then you can label them as “political” and discard them, apparently also, while your statements are equally or moreso political in nature, they should be allowed to stand regardless of the clarity of your bias in the way you look at the issues being discussed. You clearly lack objectivity with your spin on this theft story for example. I wonder if one can ever hope for objective discussion with you on this issue, or if your personal / political views have so great a hold on your thinking process that you can only ever see the one side, worst case possibilities, and if they arent there as facts, you will gladly stretch the truth to make it match how you wish it truly was.
gamewell45 said:
The facts do not bother me .
Click to expand...
Clearly the facts dont bother you. As you have shown with regards to this story you presentd yesterday, you will embellish or make up your own truth whenever you deem the true facts to have fallen short of proving your points about this issue, no need to be bothered with the facts whatsoever huh? Or maybe you just happen to overlook the facts when caught up in the ecstasy of the moment, rushing pell-mell to the conclusions you’ve drawn after seeing the headline? Either way, both reasons result in a misrepresentation of the truth.
gamewell45 said:
Since i own no handguns, I have nothing to lose either way. .
Click to expand...
I hope you are right and truly have nothing to loose, however, I fear that you are wrong, and once the “anti’s” have my handguns, they then will move on your rifle of whatever certain caliber they deem “unnecessary”, and your shotgun, and so on and so forth, until God forbid, the day comes when you discover you really did have something to loose… and all the while there are other issues which can be construed to have an even greater impact on the issue that scares you, and concerns me (the "common ground we could find?) greatly… the perpetration of armed criminal activities. Where there is common ground for us to agree and work together to accomplish the same end result, you seem very unwilling to even acknowledge any worth in engaging. If someone broke into my home and stole the gas out of my cars and made a firebomb out of it, you’d not be lobbying to outaw the production of oil would you? No, youd be rallying to have the criminals caught and brought to justice… why is it so different in this case?
gamewell45 said:
I just don’t think we need them and I’d gladly support any legislation prohibiting ownership/manufacturing of them as well.
Click to expand...
And you claimed my statement from 2 days back was unworthy of consideration because it was “political”? Hmmmmmmm…
 
chriso said:
If someone broke into my home and stole the gas out of my cars and made a firebomb out of it, you’d not be lobbying to outaw the production of oil would you?
Click to expand...
No, I’d probably recommend that you call the police and report what happened so they can get down to business and find the perpetrators. That would be the rational thing to do.
 
gamewell45 said:
No, I’d probably recommend that you call the police and report what happened so they can get down to business and find the perpetrators. That would be the rational thing to do.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that view. It seems we do have (maybe) some things we can agree upon after all. I’d venture to guess we both view the armed commission of crimes to be a huge and important issue, but dissagree as to weather restricting my right to arm myself legally will in fact impact the issue to the degree you believe it will. And, possibly dissagree regarding my view that tougher enforcement may have an even greater impact on the bottom line than your preferred method of handgun restriction across the board.

( dont know if I’ve stated that all totally acurately, but I think its pretty close? Maybe we can renew the rational discussion based upon that groundwork?

Thanks again, Chris
 
gamewell45 said:
More guns stolen from gun shop; another reason why we need to prohibit the manufacture of handguns. Police estimate close to 100 guns were stolen from the store.

q13fox.com/news/kcpq-032610-gun-store-robbery,0,2950290.story
Click to expand...
And how many hundreds were sold to law-abiding civilians?

Probably quite a bit more than a mere hundred.
rpp said:
👍

Criminals will always have guns. Anybody heard of a “zip” gun?
Click to expand...
Bazinga! I haven’t heard that one for some time, either.

Wikipedia entry on Improvised Firearms

Criminals will always be armed. It is insanity to claim that the law-abiding must not be.
 
chriso said:
The reason I ask is that we’ve been statistically unable to prove this postulation of your here in the US where the cities and states with the highest rates of gun related violence also have the most restrictive gun ownership regulations, as compared to the cities and state with the least restrictive gun ownership regulations have lowerr rates of gun related violence and crimes.
Click to expand...
Perhaps those laws were a recent (and futile) response to higher gun violence in those states.
 
gamewell45 said:
Chriso,

Thank you for your response.

I have made it very plain in here about my position on handguns and I have stated in here before that I believe that no one needs handguns or automatic weapons to protect themselves, rather I am a proponent of people defending themselves with rifles, shotguns and the like. And its no embellishment on my part. The link comes from a major news source. I’ll only invoke the “political” clause and discard your opinion if you do turn it into a political shell game.

The facts do not bother me, however I think that they do bother most of the pro-handgun owners as evidenced by their many agitated responses here. Since i own no handguns, I have nothing to lose either way. I just don’t think we need them and I’d gladly support any legislation prohibiting ownership/manufacturing of them as well.
Click to expand...
Then why are police and military members, and government tax agents issued hand guns and automatic weapons?
 
chriso said:
I’ll do my share, how many do you think I need to buy to bring things back in balance?:D:thumbsup:👍
Click to expand...
I’ve got my eye on a nice hand gun which looks very simmilar to the one I carried on active duty. I am checking it out to see if it is a fair price. I figure if I buy it then some gang banger can not. Too bad gun stores are not allowed to profile.
 
Lycorth said:
Wikipedia: Gun Politics in New Zealand - “New Zealand’s gun laws are notably more liberal than other countries in the Pacific, focusing mainly on vetting firearm owners, rather than registering firearms or banning certain types of firearms. Firearms legislation is provided for in the Arms Act and its associated regulations, though stricter unofficial police and government policies also apply.”
Click to expand...
A higher grade license required for owning handguns or semi-automatic rifles, and use of is restricted. The fees and additional cost of storage lockers etc. make doing so very expensive. Nobody is allowed to carry firearms in public for the purpose of self-defence.
Lycorth said:
Wikipedia: Gun Politics in Switzerland - "Police statistics for the year 2006records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. Some 300 deaths per year are due to legally held army ordnance weapons, the large majority of these being suicides. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms."
Click to expand...
Let’s read some more:

“To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.”

"To purchase a firearm in a commercial shop, one needs to have a Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon acquisition permit). A permit allows the purchase of three firearms"

“Basically, the sale of automatic firearms, selective fire weapons and certain accessoires such as sound suppressors (“silencers”) is forbidden (as is the sale of certain disabled automatic firearms which have been identified as easily restored to fully automatic capability). The purchase of such items is however legal with a special permit issued by cantonal police. The issuance of such a permit requires additional requirements to be met, e.g. the **possession of a specific gun locker.” **

In reality the Swiss do have some quite strict controls.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top