What's wrong with having background checks for gun ownership?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You are basically saying that some people need killing.

That’s a very poor argument for an armed society.
 
In the interests of clarity, the shooter, Mateen, did not have a “military style rapid fire” weapon. By definition, a rapid fire weapon is an automatic weapon. Mateen used an AR-15 which is a semi-automatic civilian rifle. Many civilian rifles and handguns are semiautomatic.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
One need only look back less than 100 years to how disarmed citizens were brutalized by their own governments, virtually all of them socialist states. This recent history, and there is no reason to believe that human nature has changed one iota, or that absolute power no longer corrupts absolutely.

Jon
Click to expand...
One human failing is to be always fighting yesterdays (and someone else’s) battles. Firearms in the US are not being used to fend off a tyrannical government, they are largely being used, besides to commit ordinary crimes, to “settle” traffic or property disputes and personal grudges, to protect gang turf, and, as we know, to further the cause of radical Islamic terrorism. Rather than being a weapon in a “war against tyranny”, they are a large part of the “war of all against all” of an increasingly atomistic society.
 
starshiptrooper said:
The vast majority of suicides by gun are male. If you really want to do something, give them something to live for instead of taking their guns.
Click to expand...
Don’t you think that is being done too? But why no consider suicides as a cost of having guns around. When there is no quick and easy method of suicide available, some of those suicides will come to their senses before it is too late. Not all, but some.
If someone is really determined to commit suicide, there are plenty of alternative methods.
Click to expand...
But the vast majority of suicides are not done by people who are “really determined”. They have bouts of depression that come and go, and if they can get through a bout without giving in, they may recover. If other methods take more time to plan or execute, many will recover before they can follow through.
 
starshiptrooper said:
If someone is really determined to commit suicide, there are plenty of alternative methods. Japan for instance utilizes those methods at a higher rate than the United States.
Click to expand...
I think most people would find suicide by gun much easier than seppuku. Which is why they use a gun.
 
Rau. You asked . . .
Why do we need (functioning) rapid fire military style anti-personnel weapons in thd hands on the citizenry ?
Click to expand...
Please clarify regarding “rapid fire military style”.

Are you talking about the “appearance” of a rifle?

Or are you alluding to the functionality of a rifle?

(I assume you DO know the general citizenry do NOT have military functioning rifles and have not since the 1930’s. There ARE possible exceptions but the radical Islamic Orlando shooter Omar Mateen was not one of them.)

And WHY use the term “anti-personnel weapons” in your question?

I cannot find anywhere, where any branch of the US military classifies an AR 15 (the rifle involved in the Orlando massacre) as an “anti-personnel weapon”. I’m not saying you are inventing this. I just want it referenced so I can do further reading on my own.

Thanks and God bless.

Cathoholic
 
Expatreprocedit said:
One human failing is to be always fighting yesterdays (and someone else’s) battles. Firearms in the US are not being used to fend off a tyrannical government, they are largely being used, besides to commit ordinary crimes, to “settle” traffic or property disputes and personal grudges, to protect gang turf, and, as we know, to further the cause of radical Islamic terrorism. Rather than being a weapon in a “war against tyranny”, they are a large part of the “war of all against all” of an increasingly atomistic society.
Click to expand...
Another human failing is not learning from history. Firearms are in the hands of civilians as a last line of defense against tyranny foreign or domestic. The vast number of legally owned firearms in this country are used for target and sports shooting, hunting and competition. They are also used effectively for self defense. The gang turf wars that you speak of, organized or not so organized crime, use illegally gotten or illegal firearms, used for illegal purposes.
Those people should absolutely be the target of disarming.

Jon
 
Grace and Peace!
Cathoholic said:
And WHY use the term “anti-personnel weapons” in your question?

I cannot find anywhere, where any branch of the US military classifies an AR 15 (the rifle involved in the Orlando massacre) as an “anti-personnel weapon”. I’m not saying you are inventing this. I just want it referenced so I can do further reading on my own.
Click to expand...
Cathaholic, perhaps I can be helpful here. An anti-personnel weapon is a weapon designed to kill or maim a person. The term is used to distinguish a certain class of weaponry from those weapons designed to destroy or damage buildings, vehicles, equipment or other weapons. These latter are termed “anti-materiel” [sic].

The original AR-15 was developed in the 50’s for military use. It was designed to kill people. It was an anti-personnel weapon. (Incidentally, the AR-15 was developed by Colt into the M16.) That the weapon was made available for civilian/law-enforcement purchase in the 60’s did not mean it had ceased to be an anti-personnel weapon.
starshiptrooper said:
The world is better off without some people. I hardly see this as a problem.
Click to expand...
I find this sort of statement difficult (that’s polite: “impossible” is a better word) to square with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Perhaps you would care to share with us how you square the them?
starshiptrooper said:
Whether you are killed by a car or a gun, you are still just as dead, so this is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Anything in this world can kill you: too much water, too much blunt force trauma by a folding chair, too much sugar, etc. That does not imply that the difference between water, a chair, sugar, an AR-15 and an automobile are negligible or irrelevant. I would not suggest that the next time you wish to bake a cake that you substitute chairs for sugar in the recipe. To claim that these differences (which include the purposes for which things are manufactured) are irrelevant is to confess to some sort of rational, perceptual or sensual impairment that limits your ability to distinguish between one thing and another. The effect of this impairment, however, is to render things meaningless or, in this case, to refer their meaning exclusively to their relationship to death. I don’t know if that’s what you intended to do here, but that’s what you’ve managed to do.

Further, to claim that differences are irrelevant because death happens sounds suspiciously like glib cynicism. While cynicism is an easy retreat in the face of the (apparently and increasingly) everyday horrors of 21st century life, that doesn’t mean that cycnism represents a more realistic appraisal of that life. I would not (and do not) trust any evaluations of a thing’s value or relevance based on a cynical appraisal of them. I would urge you to be similarly suspicious.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
 
exnihilo said:
Right, I don’t think there should be any limit on ownership of weapons. The constitution says the same.

I don’t think banning weapons on commercial aircraft is ‘reasonable’. It’s not really unreasonable either. What it is is something beyond the scope of our government. I can see how some people might think the ban promotes safety. Of course 9/11 showed otherwise as do all the tests of TSA which show they are worthless at detecting weapons.

Guns are currently everywhere in the US. If people who perceived guns as being an inherent danger knew where all they came into close proximity to guns they’d be shocked. They are in schools, hospitals, churches, restaurants, bars, grocery stores, everywhere. Most gun owners are not criminals.

And as for ‘Don’t worry, I haven’t harmed anyone yet, and you will just have to trust me that I won’t try to do so now’ that is already policy. Air marshalls carry guns. This is all that can be said about them. If you read the papers you see a shockingly large percentage of law enforcement and military, the people we allow to use violence and carry guns (well not the military - they are disarmed most of the time), commit criminal acts either while so employed or after.
Click to expand...
The pilots were forbidden to carry guns, which is why we had the 9/11 hijackings.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
The pilots were forbidden to carry guns, which is why we had the 9/11 hijackings.
Click to expand...
No, we had the 9/11 hijackings because someone forgot to lock the cabin door.

Which is a more sensible way to prevent bank robberies? Stationing armed guards next to an open vault, or locking the vault and going home?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
No, we had the 9/11 hijackings because someone forgot to lock the cabin door.

Which is a more sensible way to prevent bank robberies? Stationing armed guards next to an open vault, or locking the vault and going home?
Click to expand...
We had the 9/11 hijackings because Bill Clinton didn’t act on the chance to get Bin Laden.

Jon
 
LeafByNiggle said:
No, we had the 9/11 hijackings because someone forgot to lock the cabin door.

Which is a more sensible way to prevent bank robberies? Stationing armed guards next to an open vault, or locking the vault and going home?
Click to expand...
The hijackers had a whole crew of “muscle men”. They were going to take out the door.
 
JonNC said:
We had the 9/11 hijackings because Bill Clinton didn’t act on the chance to get Bin Laden.

Jon
Click to expand...
Well yeah, and now he’s gonna be First Lady.

The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on…
 
Monte_RCMS said:
The hijackers had a whole crew of “muscle men”. They were going to take out the door.
Click to expand...
They had 3 or 4 men per plane. You can only get one or two people at the door at a time. There just isn’t room for more. The doors could have been made like they are today - impossible to breach without equipment that you just can’t carry aboard the plane.

On the other hand, if they were to rely on guns, there is a good chance that a stray shot would puncture the hull, or damage a critical flight control. It is much safer just to keep a strong door locked.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
They had 3 or 4 men per plane. You can only get one or two people at the door at a time. There just isn’t room for more. The doors could have been made like they are today - impossible to breach without equipment that you just can’t carry aboard the plane.

On the other hand, if they were to rely on guns, there is a good chance that a stray shot would puncture the hull, or damage a critical flight control. It is much safer just to keep a strong door locked.
Click to expand...
That’s just it. The cockpit of a jet is the one place where a gunbattle can have no positive results. Too many things are there that can either blow up or turn the flight into a falling mass coffin.

Weren’t cockpit doors already reinforced in 2001? If not, why did the attackers rely on cutting necks to force the pilots to open the cockpit themselves?

ICXC NIKA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top