Possibly the most retarded anti-gun ad I've ever seen...

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by JET

2 kids per DAY drown in pools. I don't see anyone shouting for pools to be regulated and the parents prosecuted if a child drowns. I have also seen instances where kids were saved because there was a firearm available to them so they could stop the perpetrator.

http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/12222...or%20Pools.pdf

[Halon]

I don't think it's fair to sum it all up by saying such a broad statement like "it's unregulated". There are regulations right?

A lot of good points here, I like trolling this thread. I'm not much of a debater but I agree with a lot of points here. I do agree with what Vicious said though that you cannot protect everyone from everything. You can put things in place to protect to a degree, and that line is hard to define because everyone has such different opinions. Not just on this one topic, but on just about any topic. It's a sad situation, but accidents happen and will continue to happen until the end of time. Whether it be a kid accidentally dying from a gun, or a knife, or choking on candy, or falling out of a window. I also agree that people should be held accountable for their actions, whether it be an accident or not. But hold the individuals accountable, don't infringe upon the rights of others who are being responsible.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ving-wood.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...illed-her.html

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Three...276083451.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/12/ny...hoke.html?_r=0

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by Halon

I don't think it's fair to sum it all up by saying such a broad statement like "it's unregulated". There are regulations right?

A lot of good points here, I like trolling this thread. I'm not much of a debater but I agree with a lot of points here. I do agree with what Vicious said though that you cannot protect everyone from everything. You can put things in place to protect to a degree, and that line is hard to define because everyone has such different opinions. Not just on this one topic, but on just about any topic. It's a sad situation, but accidents happen and will continue to happen until the end of time. Whether it be a kid accidentally dying from a gun, or a knife, or choking on candy, or falling out of a window. I also agree that people should be held accountable for their actions, whether it be an accident or not. But hold the individuals accountable, don't infringe upon the rights of others who are being responsible.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ving-wood.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...illed-her.html

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Three...276083451.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/12/ny...hoke.html?_r=0

Thank you.

[Goat Blower]

This is sad. My cousin died from this same thing when I was a kid. Accidents happen and the parents suffer unbelievably.

If any laws were broken about having the gun accessible in this new case, they should pay any said fine. Punishment beyond that? Hell no, they've suffered enough.

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by Goat Blower

This is sad. My cousin died from this same thing when I was a kid. Accidents happen and the parents suffer unbelievably.

If any laws were broken about having the gun accessible in this new case, they should pay any said fine. Punishment beyond that? Hell no, they've suffered enough.

Sorry for your family, I'm sure that was hard on them.

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

So tell us, if it were King Jeremy day, what would you do? What would you put in place that removes all chance of an accident without infringing on our rights to gun ownership and use? How would you regulate gun ownership so that when it comes time for somebody to protect their families they don't get shot in the back while trying to enter a code in their lock box?

There is no such thing that removes all chance of anything. But, there are steps that can be taken with just about anything to decrease the occurrence of harm. For example safety standards are required for cars. Safety is constantly evolving in the automotive industry. Air bags and shoulder seat belts are mandatory now. Your odds of surviving a crash are much greater now than 25 years ago. Smart guns are one solution to your question and are the next evolution in gun safety, but have significant push back from the NRA because there is some implied argument that nothing can be touched with guns.

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

There is no such thing that removes all chance of anything. But, there are steps that can be taken with just about anything to decrease the occurrence of harm. For example safety standards are required for cars. Safety is constantly evolving in the automotive industry. Air bags and shoulder seat belts are mandatory now. Your odds of surviving a crash are much greater now than 25 years ago. Smart guns are one solution to your question and are the next evolution in gun safety, but have significant push back from the NRA because there is some implied argument that nothing can be touched with guns.

Well since we can both agree there are laws in place and procedures that should be followed, what else can you do protect everybody from themselves while still having the ability to defend themselves on a moments notice?

You keep comparing building and manufacturing with the ability to own and use.
Sure cars are safer because of regulations, just like guns are. But those regulations don't stop somebody from accidentally backing over a child in the driveway. It doesn't stop them from getting behind the wheel when they shouldn't. It doesn't make them perform maintenance on their brakes when needed. It doesn't make them pay attention 100% of the time while driving. So accidents do happen. You can't build this "eutopia" where nothing can go wrong. Crap happens and that's life.

Would you rather live in a society where you have the chance to protect yourself, your choice? Or would you rather live in a society where somebody else decides you can't because another person made a bad decision and you have to pay the price for it with your life?

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by Halon

I don't think it's fair to sum it all up by saying such a broad statement like "it's unregulated". There are regulations right?

Yes there are regulations, and I use unregulated when talking to Vicious as I understand his position to be there should ideally be no regulation.

Your other point not is lost on me. From my perspective, any type of regulation on firearms are much more controversial and untouchable than just about any other topic. Absolute firearm rights are seen as a personal value among many that doesn't really seem to apply to any other subject. The attitude I see goes like this. - If the government says put up a fence around the pool, people are irritated, but understand. If the government says you need a trigger lock on your guns if you have kids at home, somehow the government is violating the constitution.

[AwdGSX13]

How about starting at the beginning and instead of gun control someone argues birth control.. You have people everyday having children that A. Don't have the know how to properly take care of a child. B. Are on welfare and government assistance as it is, so really can they afford a child? Have you ever heard of that?

This is all ok? When you take into consideration school shootings, Sandy Hook as an example. Some point to the problem as the person being "unstable" and the parents did nothing about it. How about Bullying? this leads to school shootings, has anyone argued anything regarding punishment for this? I know it gets highlighted these days, but is it enough?


I think the argument Vicious is trying to make is instead of pointing towards the gun everytime, how about making people own up to their mistakes? Punishment or not, both the parents and the brother will never be able to live this down.

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

Well since we can both agree there are laws in place and procedures that should be followed, what else can you do protect everybody from themselves while still having the ability to defend themselves on a moments notice?

Require minimum training and competency for any gun use. Whether it be home protection or carry. A responsible gun owner will do that anyway, so what is the punishment? What would be the problem with a several day course requirement for gun use? How is that a bad thing when public safety is considered?
What about requiring background checks and recording transactions of all guns sales?
How will either of those prevent someone from defending themselves?

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

You keep comparing building and manufacturing with the ability to own and use.
Sure cars are safer because of regulations, just like guns are. But those regulations don't stop somebody from accidentally backing over a child in the driveway. It doesn't stop them from getting behind the wheel when they shouldn't. It doesn't make them perform maintenance on their brakes when needed. It doesn't make them pay attention 100% of the time while driving. So accidents do happen. You can't build this "eutopia" where nothing can go wrong. Crap happens and that's life.

They were required to learn the rules of driving before any of that occurred though. No one is required to learn anything at all about gun safety before using a gun to protect their home. Is it reasonable to expect to assess the danger and hit a target with no practice or training? Or understand the vigilance required to make sure a child doesn't get access to the gun?

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

Would you rather live in a society where you have the chance to protect yourself, your choice? Or would you rather live in a society where somebody else decides you can't because another person made a bad decision and you have to pay the price for it with your life?

My replies above are not in contradiction with the first statement.

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by AwdGSX13

How about starting at the beginning and instead of gun control someone argues birth control.. You have people everyday having children that A. Don't have the know how to properly take care of a child. B. Are on welfare and government assistance as it is, so really can they afford a child? Have you ever heard of that?

This is all ok? When you take into consideration school shootings, Sandy Hook as an example. Some point to the problem as the person being "unstable" and the parents did nothing about it. How about Bullying? this leads to school shootings, has anyone argued anything regarding punishment for this? I know it gets highlighted these days, but is it enough?


I think the argument Vicious is trying to make is instead of pointing towards the gun everytime, how about making people own up to their mistakes? Punishment or not, both the parents and the brother will never be able to live this down.

Don't get me started on welfare and baby factories, it won't go well. LoL

Sandy Hook is something to take a hard look at. All is not as it seemss with that.

Exactly, do we blame the car for drunk driving, more people die from that than accidental shootings. Do we blame the spoon and gallon of ice cream when somebody sits in front of the TV for 4 hours everyday eating it and gets fat and dies of a heart attack?

[AwdGSX13]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

Don't get me started on welfare and baby factories, it won't go well. LoL

Haha yeah no shit...

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by AwdGSX13

I think the argument Vicious is trying to make is instead of pointing towards the gun everytime, how about making people own up to their mistakes? Punishment or not, both the parents and the brother will never be able to live this down.

The point I am trying to get at is that there is a lot of hype about guns. A large group of people own a lot of guns. In that group, there are people who own, but are not at all educated on their safety, use, or anything else for that matter. No knowledge or training is required to own or use a gun. Yet, it can be used to legally kill another person in the act of self-defense. It can also easily kill or severely injure others accidentally if handled carelessly. Had the owner of the gun in the recent shooting been trained a better way of storing the gun and had the risks drilled into him, this may not have happened.

People do need to own up to their mistakes. The model of learning to use a gun by trial and error though instead of required training is something I have a hard time with.

Originally Posted by AwdGSX13

How about starting at the beginning and instead of gun control someone argues birth control.. You have people everyday having children that A. Don't have the know how to properly take care of a child. B. Are on welfare and government assistance as it is, so really can they afford a child? Have you ever heard of that?

If we're going to mix the two subjects, oddly enough it's easier for the government to take one's children than to take their guns and there is no constitutional argument about that.

[AJ]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

I'd bet AJ would like to keep his for this reason.

I'm just as much for sport/stress relief as it is for self protection. I've also had a gun in my hands or around me in various ways since I could pee outside and hope the wind wasn't blowing back at me. My kids will knows their guns, and it will be their choice to ever want to use one. My daughter is already old enough that when I have one apart for cleaning on my desk, she knows what it is (even as it's in pieces) and that that she doesn't touch it. I have faith in my daughter, but that doesn't mean I'd ever leave a gun out for her to get her hands on. I don't need government telling me this or checking on me to ensure I'm doing this.

I know the laws, i abide by them. And when it comes to protecting my family and being smart/safe, I go a step further. Sadly the family we keep discussing didn't. Either they didn't go through the proper training with the kids (who are old enough to go to the range with an adult and learn), didn't secure it enough (obviously), or just wasn't ready for having a gun in the house themselves. Doesn't change what happened, the tragic result, and their life long struggle with their decisions now.

Gun buying is at an all time high. Shooting is now a sport in many schools and is growing in popularity. As with anything else, gun control isn't perfect, but to me it comes down to one thing, circling back to the self defense question quoted here... Gun control, and more regulation that some want to see may stop me from having a gun but it won't stop the criminal from having one. Till that day comes, I take the right to protect my family. A right people have died to protect. A right people on this site have signed up and gone to war to protect.

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by AJ

I don't need government telling me this or checking on me to ensure I'm doing this.

If training were required for gun use in much the same way it's required for motor vehicle operation, how would that be a bad thing if it helped ensure those who don't know what they're doing to get educated?

Originally Posted by AJ

Gun control, and more regulation that some want to see may stop me from having a gun but it won't stop the criminal from having one.

No background check or paperwork is required for private gun sales. Seems to me like any criminal can just go buy a gun with no trouble whatsoever. How would closing that loophole not make it harder for a criminal to get a gun?

[AJ]

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

If training were required for gun use in much the same way it's required for motor vehicle operation, how would that be a bad thing if it helped ensure those who don't know what they're doing to get educated?

There is a difference here. A car is something used on the public roads, in fact, that training is specific to use in public. Use, every day. A gun is not. A gun is as private an item as a Playboy magazine if I choose for it to be. Self defense wise, if I can't get to my gun I always have a knife or 3, a rolling pin, baseball bat, and if needed a rolled up Playboy mag to beat someone senseless with.

And you know what, how many people have you seen on the roads and wondered how the hell they passed. But there they are. And drinking and driving. Cell phones and texting. Poorly prepped cars in bad weather. These are the aspects of danger. These are the items you can make a case for similar to gun control. It's the use of an item. How a person acts and makes decisions. Drinking and driving killed a family member of mine and I'm thankful no one else. But I won't want your right to drive taken away cause you are a more responsible driver any more than I want my gun rights taken away due to someone not being responsible. What I want are more options (and I mean options) for training, which there is a lot more of now, better help for mental health, and more $ to focus on the criminal aspects in our own communities.

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

No background check or paperwork is required for private gun sales. Seems to me like any criminal can just go buy a gun with no trouble whatsoever. How would closing that loophole not make it harder for a criminal to get a gun?

http://www.civilresponse.net/04/2014...les-minnesota/

There are laws in place, and ways as a private party seller to protect yourself in a private sale. In your transaction, that criminal buying a gun is generally doing so from another criminal. And if not, may of purchased the gun legally years before falling on hard times and becoming someone intent on using it unlawfully. Or simply, guy broke into a house a stole it. Broke into a gun store and stole it. Was one of the many temp UPS workers who steal packages over the holidays. The thing is, regulations won't stop that. It simply tells those will ill intent that once they get away with the action of getting a gun there is less chance someone is on the other end to stop them. And don't say the cops will be there. Cause in most cases they aren't there till it's too late and you just hope you're alive to tell the story.

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by AJ

There is a difference here. A car is something used on the public roads, in fact, that training is specific to use in public. Use, every day. A gun is not. A gun is as private an item as a Playboy magazine if I choose for it to be. Self defense wise, if I can't get to my gun I always have a knife or 3, a rolling pin, baseball bat, and if needed a rolled up Playboy mag to beat someone senseless with.

And you know what, how many people have you seen on the roads and wondered how the hell they passed. But there they are. And drinking and driving. Cell phones and texting. Poorly prepped cars in bad weather. These are the aspects of danger. These are the items you can make a case for similar to gun control. It's the use of an item. How a person acts and makes decisions. Drinking and driving killed a family member of mine and I'm thankful no one else. But I won't want your right to drive taken away cause you are a more responsible driver any more than I want my gun rights taken away due to someone not being responsible. What I want are more options (and I mean options) for training, which there is a lot more of now, better help for mental health, and more $ to focus on the criminal aspects in our own communities.

I understand your point here. I am sorry to hear about losing a family member to a drunk driver. I lost my dad to someone whose car trailer disconnected when they used too small of a hitch ball, so I can relate the problems irresponsible drivers can cause. And I don't want everyone to lose they're right to drive because of that person.

And you are right, a car is something used on the public roads. A driver's license is a necessity for most people. Gun are not a necessity for the majority of people. The training requirement would likely deter many irresponsible gun owner from buying one in the first place. Those are the people I personally am most concerned about. The main problem that gets me fired up is guns getting into the hands of kids due to carelessness and negligence. I believe school shootings are at the heart most calls for stricter gun control. They are for me.

Originally Posted by AJ

http://www.civilresponse.net/04/2014...les-minnesota/

There are laws in place, and ways as a private party seller to protect yourself in a private sale. In your transaction, that criminal buying a gun is generally doing so from another criminal. And if not, may of purchased the gun legally years before falling on hard times and becoming someone intent on using it unlawfully. Or simply, guy broke into a house a stole it. Broke into a gun store and stole it. Was one of the many temp UPS workers who steal packages over the holidays. The thing is, regulations won't stop that. It simply tells those will ill intent that once they get away with the action of getting a gun there is less chance someone is on the other end to stop them. And don't say the cops will be there. Cause in most cases they aren't there till it's too late and you just hope you're alive to tell the story.

The law are pretty clear that a private sale, at least in Minnesota, that unless a person tells you they are a criminal, a criminal can buy a gun no problems. If someone is short on cash and needs to sell their gun they can sell it to any Joe on the street as long as there's no reason to believe the buyer is a criminal.

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd...firearmsgd.pdf

Transfers Between Unlicensed Individuals: No Background Checks
In contrast to the provisions governing sales by licensed dealers, there is no provision in federal
or Minnesota law that requires background checks, record-keeping, or location restrictions for
firearms transfers between private individuals who are not FFLs, other than certain federal law
restrictions pertaining to acquiring or disposing of firearms across state lines.62
Exempted Transfers
Federal law authorizes an unlicensed individual (a non-FFL) who is not a prohibited person to
sell a firearm (handgun, rifle, or shotgun) to an unlicensed resident of his or her own state, as
well as to loan or rent a firearm to a nonresident of the state for temporary use for lawful sporting
purposes, provided that:
(1) the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is
prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under federal or state law;
(2) the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the laws of both states; and
(3) the transferor and transferee meet in person to make the transfer.
Since these types of firearms transfers are not regulated by either federal or Minnesota law, they
entail no legal requirements for background checks.
Federal law also provides that an unlicensed individual may sell or transfer a firearm to an FFL
in any state, but is prohibited from transferring interstate to a licensed collector any firearm other
than a curio or relic.63
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(3) and (5); 922(b)(3); 27 CFR §§ 478.29; 478.30
Minnesota Penalties
It is a gross misdemeanor for any person, including a private party, to intentionally transfer a
pistol or assault weapon to another knowing that the transferee is disqualified by law from
62 However, there are limitations on the transfer of certain types of firearms (categorized as Class II), such as
machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, short-barred rifles, and firearm silencers.
63 A federal firearms collector’s license is limited in application to firearms that qualify as curios and relic. See
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(z)(2)(C); 921(a)(13).

[Halon]

The right to bear arms is a "right". Having a drivers license is a privilege. Those are two very different things.

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by Halon

The right to bear arms is a "right". Having a drivers license is a privilege. Those are two very different things.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It is a right, based on the foundation that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, no?

If a well regulated militia doesn't require any type of training, what does it mean to be a well regulated militia?

[tehehodi]

I still think the ad is pretty retarded