Thousands of children killed in accidental shootings.

Well, the argument was presented to me.

It's idiotic.

So, I pointed out the obvious. Accidental gun deaths aren't even close to a contender with abortion killings.

Beyond that, what are we arguing about? The right to own weapons?

 

Be as certain as you care to be. Gun ownership is higher today, than it ever has been. Even among Democrats.

And they can only count the guns they know about, and extrapolate from there.

Most gun owners own a hell of a lot of guns.

 

The future will tell.

 

Hey. These are my kids. I guarantee you it's more heavily regulated here, than on your base.

I can't bear to lose a child. Your DI will use you as an example...

So don't give me this crap.

 

Guns are the only thing that could create an actual second civil war in America.

And if that happened, we'd have a military coup. That's it.

It wouldn't come down to votes, or any of that democratic nonsense. The big boys would just do what they had to do.

 

I doubt that.

If they are shot dead... I'm sure you'll be in anguish; indeed.

What are you talking about? I went through basic military training decades ago.

Take it or leave it.

 

Evidently since no information is coming forth on the age range of the "children" involved I can only surmise that this is just an irrational emotional rant without any real data associated with it.

 

The topic is your hyperbole. Its not accurate... In my area....based on me keeping up with the news--we've had one accident with a gun where a child was hurt and perhaps 20 cases of homeowner warding off criminals. Some of those homeowners had kids in the home. Evidently you trust criminals more then the homeowners...by assuming those kids would not have been harmed.

Plus...have you done the math on other ways children die in accidents? Swimming pools, cars, poisons...... Why is that math not worthy of discussion?

 

If that happens in your lifetime, it's VERY possible your kids (1 or multiple) will end up dead.

Perhaps. But you don't know that.

That you actually believe that 'democracy' is nonsense, tells me a lot.

They'll probably endure carnage and die. That's all that war is about, in the end.

 

One, the argument of where life begins is the real argument of abortion. If people could have an honest debate about this and leave out biblical rhetoric (which doesn't back up pro-lifers anyway as it defines life as when it takes it's first unassisted breath). Two, I think the discussion is right to own guns. The original intent of the constitution has been wildly manipulated by interpretation. A well-regulated militia means that in times of peace, the military is disbanded but all members are allowed to have guns. So technically, being prior military, I have more of a right by constitutional law to own a gun than some guy who never served. The reasoning was that history had shown that in time of peace, an army with no war would turn on it's own government. Therefore a militia idea was designed so that we'd have an 'army-to-go' so to speak. This was in the days when there were only a few hundred thousand people comprising the United States, though and with our perpetual wars, this law doesn't really apply in any practical way anymore.

In terms of my own beliefs, I think responsible gun owners are fine. It's the lack of weeding out responsible people and irresponsible people and the push to let more irresponsible owners have guns that bothers me. Accidental deaths is an argument for pushing out irresponsible ownership as much as possible. People don't like being told they suck at something, though, and I think that's the real fear pro-gun crowds have. They don't want to find out they're deemed idiotic or unstable.

The self defense angle is also widely misrepresented as well. Data shows that homes with guns make it more likely for someone to get shot with said gun bought for protection. As well, if someone is being responsible with a gun and have kids, it's not going to do them a lot of good if they follow wisdom and keep the gun and bullets separate and out of reach of the kids when they're young. Something parents who teach kids where the gun is and how/when to use it is that it's always followed by 'this is not a play toy'. This in most kids ears sounds like this, "This is super fun but I don't want you having super fun" and will be more prone to seek out the gun when the parent is away, just like a kid getting into his dad's Playboy collection, etc. But if you're keeping the ammo and gun separate, one, you're not really going to be able to put the two together in any sort of speed which would stop an intruder with any effectiveness. As well, people seem to forget that dry wall doesn't stop bullets very well which is what most homes have as walls. So if you did have your gun and shot and missed an intruder, you run the risk of the bullet going through a wall an injuring the very people you're trying to protect.

So overall, I mean the logic of guns people try to argue for is lost on me, but I'm not against people owning them. I just wish these people would say "I like having a gun because it makes me feel safer." The discussion has never stayed in logic, it's always been on emotion and emotionally motivated behavior. This is beyond argument regardless of what is actually said to the contrary.

 

Whoa. I have a Glock 22 beside me at all times. 15 rounds in the clip, chamber empty. My wife cannot chamber a round in that firearm. She doesn't have the hand strength. I can chamber it in a heartbeat. My kids? No chance that they could ever make that gun deadly.

It's that simple. This handgun has no safety. It is "loaded". No one is going to be hurt, other than somebody intruding.

 

If you feel safe with that, good for you. I am not on the side of impeding on that right. Again, my argument is to regulate them with the same fervor of automobiles. No one minds requirements to get a car. Everyone seems to mind it when it comes to guns and it makes no sense.

 

There are no requirements to buy a car other than to pay for it. The only requirements pertain to using it on publicly funded roads.

 

When I've bought a car, I've had to provide proof of my license and purchase insurance on the spot. Then I had to register it or risk being pulled over for using temp plates too long.

Then the actual requirements for getting a license vary from state to state as well. This is really my issue with gun laws as a whole. They're too full of patchwork state-by-state legislation which means that if you don't like the laws of one state, you can travel to another to by pass them, which essentially makes them ineffective in practical scenarios.

 

You are talking about licensing a car, not buying it.

No you can't just go to another State and pass them up. You evidently don't know much about current gun laws.

 

I really don't know what they're griping about. They believe in evolution, kids playing with guns their stupid parents should have locked up is just part of that process. If you ask a Darwinist, it's just part of the natural selection process that advances mankind. I simply don't understand why they get so upset when their belief system is in action?

 

It is illegal to buy a firearm in any state other than the one you are a legal resident in. It is also illegal to sell a firearm to resident of a state other than the one the sale is being conducted in. If you want to buy a firearm out of state, you have to have it shipped to a firearms dealer in your home state and go through whatever process is involved in buying a firearm in your own state.

You can't legally bypass any firearms laws by going to a different state.

 

False false and false. It's completely legal to buy firearms out of state. If this wasn't the case, why would federal blanket law even be a huge issue? There's no logical reason to push for federal level laws if state laws were enforced as you described.

 

It is against Federal law to buy a handgun out of State and move it across State lines without going through a Federal Firearms Licensed dealer with the usual background check. Next?

 

Now, here is an idea based on the gun grabbers arguments.

Since automobiles kill many many more children than guns do and since about 1/2 of all accidents are caused by drunken driving it is only "common sense" to limit all automobiles to 10 MPH. It is common sense if it saves just one child.

Think about it. You can still buy a car. You can still get to work, you may be inconvenienced and you will have to plan ahead but no one is stopping you from doing either.

 

The reason for guns in the house is to keep the family MORE safe, but it's found they make the family LESS safe. They have the OPPOSITE of the intended effect.

The other accidents you mentioned don't fall into that category.

 

It's worthy of discussion in a thread about it.

This is about something that's done to keep the family safe but which has the opposite effect.

Nothing else you mentioned is in that category.

 

The statistics show us that lemon-scented bleach make the household less safe for children by a wide margin over guns.

 

The numbers do not show that. That is just another gun grabber talking point.

 

People from other states travel to PA to visit the Cabela's superstore here. But they have to fill out whatever forms their specific state requires. So they can't get around that.

But, I know a guy who went to Arizona and bought 15 firearms at a gun show. No paperwork.