I am pro-gun - ask me anything...

Let's see what would happen in the event of a coup:
Stock markets crash, along with the dollar.
Capital flies abroad, and banks collapse.
The Chinese and other investors dump US paper so the country is bankrupt.
Millions lose their jobs.
The 1930's resemble a picnic.
Trump and the others suffer worst of all.

 

You know where this is going. You never have and probably never will need a gun for self-defense, so enjoy your hobby.

 

M'kay.

 

M'kay, so it ain't going to happen. You'll never need to join a militia to fight the government.

 

This is your opinion, based on and supported by nothing but your suppositions.

However, I will say that since the anti-gun side keeps telling us how gun-related crime is -so- bad it requires further restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding, obtaining a firearm for self-dense is a perfectly reasonable and rational act.

 

You asked if I could ever envision such a situation. I said yes.
Are you telling me I -can't- envision such a situation?

 

So? You are suggesting that the resources available to the mentally ill are adequate, and the services we provide do enough to solve the suicide problem? I'm glad you brought up suicide. You recognize that the United States has the highest rate of firearm-related suicide on the PLANET, right? Are you still going to try and argue that the means we are using to address this problem are adequate? You didn't pay any attention to that whole VA debacle and stay ignorant of the fact that 22 American army vets kill themselves every single day?

Sure, alright. You probably have a knee-jerk reaction to what I said above as a bunch of emotional fluff, so let's just get really practical here. A dead person can't work and help grow the economy. He can't start that new business. He can't provide for his family. His death causes emotional harm that causes people to have to seek out medical and psychiatric care that further strains our healthcare system. Those he associated with will have reduced productivity at work. These are very tangible, easy-to-understand ill effects of an individual killing himself, right?

There's a practical solution to these problems. Ban guns. Get rid of all of them. It may not ELIMINATE suicide but I guarantee it will REDUCE it. A lot of gun-related suicides come about because of just ONE MOMENT of weakness and aren't necessarily indicative of deep-seated mental problems. How many people, in their weak moments, are going to jab a knife into their belly? How many will actually carry through with a more drawn-out form of suicide that gives them more time to think about what they're actually doing? Banning guns will go a really long way towards resolving what I hope we both agree at this point is a very PRACTICAL problem.

If you:
- Agree that suicide is a problem
- Want to keep your guns

Then it's on you to come up with a better solution. Banning guns is a GREAT solution. I couldn't care less about your loss of hobby if it means saving even a single life, especially the life of a veteran who served his country. Start playing the guitar. Start woodworking. I don't care. It's a small sacrifice compared to what we'd gain by reducing the suicide rate in this country.

So what are you going to do, since this really is a problem and you've, er, SHOT DOWN the most obvious and helpful answer to the problem, and we've already seen that the existing support system for those at risk of suicide has done nothing to stop the United States from leading the world in gun-related suicide?

 

Apparently he didn't pass history.

 

I've suggested no such thing. I'm still waiting for you to ask a question I can answer.

I spoke to the opinions of others; based on fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, I worry not to much about them, as rational reasoned people will not be swayed by such arguments.

Arguing for the banning guns in response to the tiny fraction of them used to commit suicide is a fallacious appeal to emotion.
Beyond that, banning and confiscating >300,000,000 guns is not a "practical" solution to anything and will, in the long run, lead to far more deaths.

 

Do you believe more restrictive gun laws would lead to an increase in violent deaths?

 

One needs only to casually study Wiemar Germany.

 

By "violent deaths" I presume you mean deaths related to criminal acts?

 

Including domestic crime. Yes.

(late edit)Not including suicide though.

 

A gun only has one use which is to kill. I do not wish to kill which absolves me from any misuse of such technology. So for me if I had one it would be a totally useless piece of equipment and hopefully that is the case elsewhere.

 

Gun laws that restrict the rights of the law abiding make it harder for the law abiding to obtain a firearm, but do not affect criminal access to firearms. Making it harder for the law abiding to obtain a firearm makes it less likely a law abiding citizen will have one when he needs it. Criminals, still able to illegally obtain firearms, are as likely to have them as before the enaction of the restrictions on the law abiding.

Thus, fewer law abiding have guns, while the same number of criminal have guns; all else being equal this means more criminals will find unarmed victims, and violent crime, which might have otherwise been stopped by an armed victim. will go up.

 

What kind of things should make a person unable to legally purchase?

Felony charges and/or convictions? Criminal negligence in the handling or storage of firearms? Mental incapacity and/or instability?

Should all these be ignored because of the chance of them being misapplied or used unfairly?

 

The list of "prohibited persons" under federal law covers this quite well.

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
(6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
( 8 ) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

 

Fair enough, but this is your personal opinion right?

Personally I'm always on the fence about gun laws. I've grown up around firearms and have never been afraid of anyone just because they carried. I think the use of firearms for leisure or personal protection is by and large a good thing. I don't own myself, but I'm self aware enough to know I feel safer knowing I can easily purchase one if someone is seriously threatening me.

But... there are some really crazy people with guns out there.

 

Even a 'knight without armor in a savage land' needs a gun. The weakest and most vulnerable need one even more.

 

One that happens to coincide with the law at it stands right now.

Yup. One of the dangers of a free society.

 

2nd Amendment aside, we simply cannot allow folks who are mentally unhinged, have been convicted of violent felonies, from owning guns.

maybe after say 10 years of a crime-free life or mentally stable, but only then.

as fat as Gun Free zones like court houses and govt. buildings, that also makes sense.

States also should have the right to make schools, libraries Gun Free Zones.

and we should be able to ban people from owning explosives, bazookas, rocket launchers, tanks, grenades, etc etc

as for assault-weapon bans, im not sure.

but i do support permits for handgun possession and requiring training for CCW

 

Court houses and government buildings are not "Gun Free Zones"

 

Do you think the SAW is a piece of junk?

 

I never put people on ignore. I always relish the opportunity to expose the ignorance in comments made without being backed by personal research, or formal knowledge, or direct personal experience and/or a reasonable degree of study.

 

The same limits that should be placed on Private Corporate ownership. What places the private corporations above private and individual human beings?

Finally, what limits should be placed on drivers who put on make-up, shave, handle cells phones and PDAs while driving? And, when those people engage in such behavior, are they at the same time placing the general public in imminent danger of great bodily injury and/or death?