ADVERTISEMENT

A hypothetical question for gun folk...

Out of curiosity, do you anticipate felons (whom are already barred from buying and selling guns legally) to follow a hypothetical background check requirement? They aren't now, what would make them in your example? Would you incentivize private citizens to run their own sting operation? Its one of those options that everyone defaults to, but in practice, how do you make it work (and for now, we'll table the de facto registry this would create)

We have a national database - the problem is the admins are not good at updating/maintaining it. The NICS system is lacking a lot of information. So what you want already exists - how do you make those people who's job it is to submit the info do it? Because if you have a solution, please share as that's something that can be and should be done presently.
Make all gun transactions traceable. A gun that is used in a crime is tracked back to the owner. They have culpability if they didn't sell/gift the gun with a proper transfer or if they didn't secure it properly. The felon buys a gun from a guy on the street who can buy them legally but there's no real consequence for the seller.

Fund and focus on the databases to make the process quick and seamless. It will take work but so did electronic medical records.
 
Make all gun transactions traceable. A gun that is used in a crime is tracked back to the owner. They have culpability if they didn't sell/gift the gun with a proper transfer or if they didn't secure it properly. The felon buys a gun from a guy on the street who can buy them legally but there's no real consequence for the seller.

Fund and focus on the databases to make the process quick and seamless. It will take work but so did electronic medical records.
And when guns are stolen - you're going to punish the victims? Or guns already existing outside of any database? (Guns arent depreciating resources). How about the guns that are purchased presently through all the legal means (including the background checks) yet still used in violent crimes - how are you changing that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCHawk5
Don’t engage with him. He’s “never wrong” if you know what I mean. Just drives conversations nowhere.
its a means of cheap entertainment - we've argued over dozens of things, never have I been given a piece of info that made me change or question my position (nor have I for him im sure), but he is entertaining.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk
We've got seemingly a million threads fighting over guns good / guns bad - that's not my question(s). Hypothetically:

Do you think having your child killed at the hand of a school shooter like Newtown or Uvlade would change your thoughts on guns?
Similarly, do you think if you were a first responder or medical person that had to remove the bodies would change your thoughts on guns?
If your child was the one that committed the murders of school children in a school shooting, would it change your thoughts on guns?

I'm not a gun guy. Don't own one, don't think I ever will and am more of a big dog / Louisville Slugger guy when it comes to home protection. But I've often thought through the hypothetical that if I were to actually have an intruder get past those two things and still overpower me in my own home (and live) - would I change my mind and become a gun owner/advocate?

What say you HORT? Can you offer a thoughtful response to these questions over the next sayyyyy ten posts before it devolves into trolls and pissing matches?
Since I guess I'm a gun person, I think it would have to be defined what stance I currently have that would be changed by said events.

As a gun person, what do you think my position is on guns and the 2nd Amendment?


...am more of a big dog / Louisville Slugger guy when it comes to home protection. But I've often thought through the hypothetical that if I were to actually have an intruder get past those two things and still overpower me in my own home (and live) - would I change my mind and become a gun owner/advocate?
FWIW, I'm not a big guy and I'm actually a disabled vet, so taking someone on hand-to-hand isn't going to go well for me, despite my best efforts. I have had a home invasion while home with my kids down the hall and I handled it armed. The intruders fled and no shots were fired when they either heard me chamber a round or saw my gun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jamesvanderwulf
Maybe

No

Yes, likely.

I am a gun owner, but feel like assault rifles are something that shouldn’t be in the hands of anyone but law enforcement and military. Most of my friends, son and son-in-law all own them. Would I take them out of their hands? No, wouldn’t even consider it.
 
Last edited:
Every cop sees Ben Crump hiding in the bushes ready and willing to ruin his and his family’s life if the cop shots first and the perp turns out to be a minority. I’m surprised any cop shots first nowadays…
Ben Crump hiding in the bushes? Not possible if he's within 20 miles of a camera or 50 miles of grift....
 
  • Haha
Reactions: jamesvanderwulf
And when guns are stolen - you're going to punish the victims? Or guns already existing outside of any database? (Guns arent depreciating resources). How about the guns that are purchased presently through all the legal means (including the background checks) yet still used in violent crimes - how are you changing that?
WTF? Where have I ever said to punish the victim? I've advocated for making the gun owners bear responsibility for keeping their guns secure. Current guns will have to be registered to be legal. Most responsible gun owners keep theirs secured and have them registered.

The goal is reduction in gun deaths and harm - it's not elimination because that's unrealistic.
 
WTF? Where have I ever said to punish the victim? I've advocated for making the gun owners bear responsibility for keeping their guns secure. Current guns will have to be registered to be legal. Most responsible gun owners keep theirs secured and have them registered.

The goal is reduction in gun deaths and harm - it's not elimination because that's unrealistic.
Did you see the question mark? It was a question in reference to your comment about culpability. Are you punishing people if someone breaks into their residence to steal a gun?

Current guns will have to be registered - are you laboring under the delusion criminals are going to abide by that? If so, how are you making that happen?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCHawk5
Since I guess I'm a gun person, I think it would have to be defined what stance I currently have that would be changed by said events.

As a gun person, what do you think my position is on guns and the 2nd Amendment?

I have no idea nor could I put everyone in the same box. My hypothetical and questions are set from your current baseline, whatever that may be, and if they’d change given those scenarios.
 
I have no idea nor could I put everyone in the same box. My hypothetical and questions are set from your current baseline, whatever that may be, and if they’d change given those scenarios.
Then no, they likely wouldn't change. I'd probably be more involved in trying to make the changes I already believe should happen. In fact, I may likely start punching NRA members in the face (something new for me).
 
Did you see the question mark? It was a question in reference to your comment about culpability. Are you punishing people if someone breaks into their residence to steal a gun?

Current guns will have to be registered - are you laboring under the delusion criminals are going to abide by that? If so, how are you making that happen?
FFS - you asked a question suggesting something I never mentioned. Why would the victims be punished? Stupid question, at best.

Breaking into a locked house to get a gun, no - the owner isn't culpable, imo. Leave the gun in an unlocked truck, yeah there's culpability. A kid takes it from their house and it wasn't locked up - culpable. Again, imo.

Register existing guns to make them legal. All others are illegal. As it stands now criminals are walking around with unregistered, legal guns. Let's get rid of as many of those as we can.

I've offered some suggestions. What are yours? Be specific.
 
FFS - you asked a question suggesting something I never mentioned. Why would the victims be punished? Stupid question, at best.

Breaking into a locked house to get a gun, no - the owner isn't culpable, imo. Leave the gun in an unlocked truck, yeah there's culpability. A kid takes it from their house and it wasn't locked up - culpable. Again, imo.

Register existing guns to make them legal. All others are illegal. As it stands now criminals are walking around with unregistered, legal guns. Let's get rid of as many of those as we can.

I've offered some suggestions. What are yours? Be specific.
Good, so we've established there will still be a considerable amount of unaccounted for guns in the very wrong hands, yea?
Its already very illegal for these people to own guns, but theyre not prosecuted for those crimes at near the rate they should be. So your solution is to prosecute existing criminals who are breaking the law by possessing a gun? I whole-heartily agree, and if you read the thread, you'll see ive already stated that (along with incentivizing those responsible to update and maintain NICS). The thing is, you dont need a new law to do either of those things - that can (and should) absolutely happen today - but theyre not. So how do you make that change?

As far as root cause solutions - that depends on if you think there are just some people who are incapable of being good citizens or not. If not, then the solution is removal from society via prison. If you think they are capable, then you need to go further up the chain of effects - home life, influences (or lack thereof), education, whatever factors may be in play. I dont have that answer, and anyone who does will be a very popular person, but I do know the answer is not more laws on the books that wont be properly enforced when we already have so many that aren't.
 
Good, so we've established there will still be a considerable amount of unaccounted for guns in the very wrong hands, yea?
Its already very illegal for these people to own guns, but theyre not prosecuted for those crimes at near the rate they should be. So your solution is to prosecute existing criminals who are breaking the law by possessing a gun? I whole-heartily agree, and if you read the thread, you'll see ive already stated that (along with incentivizing those responsible to update and maintain NICS). The thing is, you dont need a new law to do either of those things - that can (and should) absolutely happen today - but theyre not. So how do you make that change?

As far as root cause solutions - that depends on if you think there are just some people who are incapable of being good citizens or not. If not, then the solution is removal from society via prison. If you think they are capable, then you need to go further up the chain of effects - home life, influences (or lack thereof), education, whatever factors may be in play. I dont have that answer, and anyone who does will be a very popular person, but I do know the answer is not more laws on the books that wont be properly enforced when we already have so many that aren't.
Or we actually, once and for all provide necessary resources that give ALL citizens a chance to be successful and don't need to turn to crime. This is a uniquely American experience. Why? Because wealth and white cultural mindsets are having a negative impact with consequences for far too many.
 
Or we actually, once and for all provide necessary resources that give ALL citizens a chance to be successful and don't need to turn to crime. This is a uniquely American experience. Why? Because wealth and white cultural mindsets are having a negative impact with consequences for far too many.
I mean, you threw race in there, which wasnt germane, but the other stuff you may have a point. Depending on your definition of "provide" "necessary" "resources" and "successful".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Old_wrestling_fan
Or we actually, once and for all provide necessary resources that give ALL citizens a chance to be successful and don't need to turn to crime. This is a uniquely American experience. Why? Because wealth and white cultural mindsets are having a negative impact with consequences for far too many.
Whaaaat?? "Uniquely American experience..."? You do realize that we enjoy one of the highest standards of living for ALL of our citizens in the world. A "poor" person in America, with a house/apt to live in, a vehicle to drive, food to eat, big screen TV to watch, etc, etc, lives better than do some "rich" people many places in this world.

Approximately how much needs to be given to EVERYONE to prevent them from turning to a life of crime to survive? Man, the race baiters and the suchlike got to you sir.
 
Whaaaat?? "Uniquely American experience..."? You do realize that we enjoy one of the highest standards of living for ALL of our citizens in the world. A "poor" person in America, with a house/apt to live in, a vehicle to drive, food to eat, big screen TV to watch, etc, etc, lives better than do some "rich" people many places in this world.

Approximately how much needs to be given to EVERYONE to prevent them from turning to a life of crime to survive? Man, the race baiters and the suchlike got to you sir.
Gun violence, also we incarcerate more people than other country in the world. Make no mistake, that's by systemic design.
 
Whaaaat?? "Uniquely American experience..."? You do realize that we enjoy one of the highest standards of living for ALL of our citizens in the world. A "poor" person in America, with a house/apt to live in, a vehicle to drive, food to eat, big screen TV to watch, etc, etc, lives better than do some "rich" people many places in this world.

Approximately how much needs to be given to EVERYONE to prevent them from turning to a life of crime to survive? Man, the race baiters and the suchlike got to you sir.

We made the top 20 list, go us. USA! USA!
 
  • Love
Reactions: NCHawk5
Gun violence, also we incarcerate more people than other country in the world. Make no mistake, that's by systemic design.
We incarcerate people who repeatedly break the law. Criminals are usually given 8 - 10 crimes before they do any real time, then the same folks who want more gun laws. ( which will lead to more brown/black prisoners ) cry that we incarcerate more people than China or Saudi Arabia...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Old_wrestling_fan
We incarcerate people who repeatedly break the law. Criminals are usually given 8 - 10 crimes before they do any real time, then the same folks who want more gun laws. ( which will lead to more brown/black prisoners ) cry that we incarcerate more people than China or Saudi Arabia...
And why do criminals have to keep committing crimes? Hint: Lack of resources. Some of you don't want to admit that we are reactive a society instead of a proactive society. Also, there should be no such thing as a billionaire. Just look at military vs. education budgets.
 
Last edited:
And why do criminals have to keep committing crimes? Hint: Lack of resources. Some of you don't want to admit that we are reactive a society instead of a proactive society. Also, there should be no such thing as a billionaire. Just look at military vs. education budgets.
"There shouldn't be billionaires".....? Well theres a disqualifier for rational thought, but hell, let's see what you have to say: what happens in your utopia when a companys valuation ticks over from $999,999,999.99 for the owner/biggest stock holder?
 
You do realize what those countries have that we don’t, correct? They don’t have to defend themselves because we do all of the dirty work for them. Trump was right in trying to get European countries to contribute more militarily (I know, but Putin conspiracy puppet!)
Head shaking
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
And why do criminals have to keep committing crimes? Hint: Lack of resources. Some of you don't want to admit that we are reactive a society instead of a proactive society. Also, there should be no such thing as a billionaire. Just look at military vs. education budgets.


Rank about the same globally, I realize not a perfect comparison because military denominator is different than education denominator, but looks like we just spend inefficiently 🤷‍♂️
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkNester
This country is chock full of nutters. A gun, for personal protection, is not a bad idea.
Problem is that a lot of guns aren't manufactured for personal protection. They are manufactured to make mass shootings a breeze. Which is why I think real solutions start with manufacturing.
 
So what I’m hearing is we should take some of our military budget and use it for other domestic societal purposes?
Yes- sort of. Slash the military budget (while getting other countries to pay up). Cut other federal programs- put as much as you can at the state level (housing, food, health). The federal government is an inefficient use of resources by definition. Tax and spend at the closer level of a problem.
 
Good, so we've established there will still be a considerable amount of unaccounted for guns in the very wrong hands, yea?
Its already very illegal for these people to own guns, but theyre not prosecuted for those crimes at near the rate they should be. So your solution is to prosecute existing criminals who are breaking the law by possessing a gun? I whole-heartily agree, and if you read the thread, you'll see ive already stated that (along with incentivizing those responsible to update and maintain NICS). The thing is, you dont need a new law to do either of those things - that can (and should) absolutely happen today - but theyre not. So how do you make that change?

As far as root cause solutions - that depends on if you think there are just some people who are incapable of being good citizens or not. If not, then the solution is removal from society via prison. If you think they are capable, then you need to go further up the chain of effects - home life, influences (or lack thereof), education, whatever factors may be in play. I dont have that answer, and anyone who does will be a very popular person, but I do know the answer is not more laws on the books that wont be properly enforced when we already have so many that aren't.
Oh man, this is good stuff. What ****ing nonsense. All we've established is that we can get a significant amount of guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. We won't take all of them out of all the bad hands. It's NOT illegal for someone with a criminal record to own a gun - it is illegal for someone who has committed a felony to own a gun. But the vast majority of these horrific incidents are not being committed by convicted felons. That's a false narrative that I think you know but still try to use it.

And your drivel on "root causes" - please. Are mentally ill people incapable of being good citizens? Who decides that? And how do you determine when someone is mentally ill? JFC. Mental illness, crime, evil people will all exist and always have. Focusing all attention on trying to solve that is absurd and only express by those of you who value your guns over progress on these huge issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkNester
Whaaaat?? "Uniquely American experience..."? You do realize that we enjoy one of the highest standards of living for ALL of our citizens in the world. A "poor" person in America, with a house/apt to live in, a vehicle to drive, food to eat, big screen TV to watch, etc, etc, lives better than do some "rich" people many places in this world.

Approximately how much needs to be given to EVERYONE to prevent them from turning to a life of crime to survive? Man, the race baiters and the suchlike got to you sir.
LOL - "life of crime". Such bullshit. These atrocities aren't being committed by career criminals. That's just more right wing propaganda you're lapping up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkNester
Think about the problem with federal taxation- most people who pay federal taxes do not benefit at all until they hit retirement age. It’s an adversarial relationship. Local/state taxation and spending is much more relevant to a taxpayer, and they tend to be significantly more involved- also hold much more power as a voter.
 
Maybe

No

Yes, likely.

I am a gun owner, but feel like assault rifles are something that shouldn’t be in the hands of anyone but law enforcement and military. Most of my friends, son and son-in-law all own them. Would I take them out of their hands? No, wouldn’t even consider it.

Answers the questions! Well done. Welcome to the club in this thread that followed my OP. But I have a question - are you an EMT? Cleaning up highway splatters have impacted my EMT friend’s views on things. But they’re also a bit jaded at this point so I see why question #2 is not going to move the needle. Kid splatter, adult splatter…it’s all splattter. Is that where you’re at?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT