Self-professed "gun nut" on gun control

[Belsnickel]

(07-02-2016, 10:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Every gun is designed to kill other humans.  

No. Every firearm is capable of killing a human, but not every one is designed for killing them.

(07-03-2016, 12:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm honestly surprised by this as, iirc, you lean heavily libertarian.  For someone of that persuasion you lean heavily, at least on these issues, to "the government knows best" line of thinking.  I'm personally of the opinion that adults should be treated like adults until they prove they aren't capable of functioning like adults.  As long as there are freedoms there will be those who abuse them.  I'll take that over not having the freedoms in the first place any day and I think most of the framers would be in lock step with me on that one.

My political ideologies are a hodgepodge these days. I became a bit disillusioned with the libertarian movement for a number of reasons. Gun control has always been something I have differed with the small-government types, though. If you notice, however, I often phrase things as having not heard a convincing argument for the need, etc. This is because as much as I feel there is no need for these weapons and based on my own collection would not be missing any if they did ban them, I still don't feel 100% in favor of doing so. It's a 50/50 thing.

(07-03-2016, 12:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You are indeed.  

Yeah, people I have hunted with give me a hard time. I take a single shot rifle and three rounds. I am also the guy you will see in the woods in jeans and a flannel shirt.

I also won't use an inline muzzle loader or a compound bow. Flintlock and recurve.

(07-03-2016, 12:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Without getting into many specifics, as there were minors involved, there was recently a burglary of an occupied dwelling in the middle of the night here in LA.  The occupant is an LEO.  He confronted the suspects, again I'll only say it was much more than one, and fired on them after they made a threatening move.  He used his entire normal capacity (10 rounds is not normal capacity   ) magazine.  Luckily, for the criminals, no one was killed but I fear that a normal civilian, without much training and range time, would likely have hit no one and may very well have been killed in response.  Honestly, and speaking as one in the profession, a civilian is in more need of a normal capacity magazine than an LEO.  LEO's have training, back up, body armor, so much more going for them than your typical civilian.  I can reload any of my firearms without quickly and without conscious thought, I've trained on them that often.  How many civilians with normal day jobs, kids and so many other responsibilities do you think can say the same?  I'd venture very few.  

There is information missing there, though. Were the rounds fired in rapid succession? Would the criminals have fled after an initial one-two rounds? The statistics show that the vast majority of times, that is the case. They also show that this scenario was an anomaly in other ways as well. The number of assailants is very rarely more than two. I am working off of memory here because I can't remember it all. It was some NRA statistics on home defense IIRC.

(07-03-2016, 12:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The anti-gun side likes to waive the bloody shirt and chant the mantra of "if only one life is saved".  I think that slogan can easily be co-opted for gun rights proponents.  I firmly believe that the right of any citizen to be able to adequately defend themselves from some POS criminal is more important than the lives lost due to the comparatively small fraction of homicides that don't involve criminal on criminal violence, especially in the area of long guns, which are used in so few homicides that the efforts to ban them border on the ********.  You want to make a significant dent in gun related homicides then raise the penalty for illegal carrying of a firearm, using a firearm in the commission of an offense or any other such crime.  No plea bargains (believe me some of the deals I've seen, if I could relate them to you, would make you want to vomit) for gun related offenses for defendants with a criminal record.  In short, target criminals instead of the millions of responsible gun owners who will never commit a gun related crime.

I'm in greatly in favor of stiffer penalties. I'd also like to see universal background checks and a standard decided upon for a level of training for someone to carry their firearm on their person outside their home, open or concealed. The prohibition of firearms, as I mentioned earlier, is something I am not dead set in favor of, but I am concerned about people with zero training being able to legally carry a firearm anywhere as is the case in my state.