Suzuki SV650 Riders Forum banner

21 - 40 of 44 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
This doesn't mean we do nothing, but just push for solutions that don't involve taking away from others.
The problem is that those solutions require assessing blame somewhere other than the gun. And, 90% of the time, that is going to mean that an awful lot of people will need to look in the mirror to find an actual fix.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,042 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
The problem is that those solutions require assessing blame somewhere other than the gun. And, 90% of the time, that is going to mean that an awful lot of people will need to look in the mirror to find an actual fix.
I know. Blaming something you don't like is easy. Blaming something you don't want is easy. So yah I get a big up hill battle in getting the pro gun control group to see the real problem is not the gun, but in society. I think getting a true solution to our violence problem will face opposition from many sides.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
If you consider the extreme amount of violence that we find in urban centers, I, for one, am actually curious to see what, if anything, changes over the next 4 to 8 years.

Fundamentally, I'm not sure anything can change. I think people need to want to change to do it. I don't believe it can be mandated.

I think, part of making a positive change, however, also comes from not making intentional negative changes. Which I firmly believe has been the intent of government for a long time.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,042 Posts
Discussion Starter #24
If you consider the extreme amount of violence that we find in urban centers, I, for one, am actually curious to see what, if anything, changes over the next 4 to 8 years.

Fundamentally, I'm not sure anything can change. I think people need to want to change to do it. I don't believe it can be mandated.

I think, part of making a positive change, however, also comes from not making intentional negative changes. Which I firmly believe has been the intent of government for a long time.
I don't expect any real change. In incoming party really has no interest or at least hasn't shown any to solving this. The other side is to busy using it as a tool to remove choices of others, so no real drive to look beyond the gun.

I don't think we can mandate our way out of this problem either. I think the best way is to make it easier for people to choose to get out of it and getting tougher on those that are the problem.

Which I guess is probably the hardest part of this problem is how do we get off this mode of trying to blame and control others and onto one of moving to a solution?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,745 Posts
The gun control people do seem adamant that SOMEONE do something about what they perceive as the problem...while the other side (who carry daily) belive that it is OUR responsibility to insure our own personal safety. I don't need a Policeman to be nearby, if a goblin tries to do me harm....it's up to ME to defend against them.

It comes down to personal responsibility where the Pro Gun folks gladly accept it while the Anti's seem to be afraid and want others to do this for them. The old adage 'when seconds count help is only minutes away' still applies so being armed and able to defend yourself is the best way to insure your own personal safety.

I lived in FL when they first started offering Carry Permits and was in the very first batch to receive one. You had to prove competency which isn't a bad idea at all...and in the first year violent crime went down dramatically. We now have 'Shall Issue' here and those willing to get a concealed permit have proven to be the most reliable citizens with the lowest crime rate of all that can be categorized. The Anti's seem to believe that if you are carrying a firearm that you'll just shoot anyone that bothers you...which couldn't be farther from the truth. But truth is not what is they're about, they want to use fear to get the control that they crave. Good discussion folks.:)
 

·
site supporter
Joined
·
6,095 Posts
RecoilRob said:
The Anti's seem to believe that if you are carrying a firearm that you'll just shoot anyone that bothers you...which couldn't be farther from the truth. But truth is not what is they're about, they want to use fear to get the control that they crave. Good discussion folks.
There were some very high profile examples of people carrying either initiating or overreacting with gunfire in situations that never needed to occur. Several notable ones in Florida. It may be that the blowback from those events served to remind the less-stable carrying population that over-reacting can never be Plan A.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
835 Posts
It may be that the blowback from those events served to remind the less-stable carrying population that over-reacting can never be Plan A.
And that is how the media controls the narrative, very rarely (compared to the rate) reporting when those legally carrying thwart crimes. If they don't actually kill the criminal, it isn't reported. Why not? Because where is the sensation in a threat deterred if no shot was fired, which is how it goes down the majority of the time.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,042 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
There were some very high profile examples of people carrying either initiating or overreacting with gunfire in situations that never needed to occur. Several notable ones in Florida. It may be that the blowback from those events served to remind the less-stable carrying population that over-reacting can never be Plan A.
RecoilRob isn't saying there are not those out there, rather that those few don't represent the majority. For example just because we can find a large groups of squids stunt riding in traffic doesn't mean that every single motorcyclist does the same, the same holds true for conceal carry.

A common theme among the pro gun control group is that they want to paint everyone in the same light as the extreme minority that is the problem. At best, they simply just don't want to distinguish between the two. How ever the facts are that these minority don't represent the majority seems to also be ignored.

This is one of the things that has created division on this topic. If we really want to move forward on a solution to our violence problem, one thing we have to do is stop looking at gun owners as just "Potential Criminals that need controlling" and view them as "Equal Citizens" that have the same rights and choice as any pro gun control proponent does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,345 Posts
It is not about those incidents representing the majority. It is about minimizing those incidents to the level possible. The reasonable gun control people want to ensure guns are not in the hands of people that want to do harm. The reasonable non-gun control people seek alternatives to solving that problem. Note that I did not mention either extreme because they are both beyond reason. If we could get these two groups to recognize they are seeking the same results and to work together, we may actually make progress but the extremes seem to drive the narrative.
 

·
site supporter
Joined
·
6,095 Posts
And that is how the media controls the narrative, very rarely (compared to the rate) reporting when those legally carrying thwart crimes.
I'm always interested to learn when that happens. I even posted a few examples in the locked and unlamented "Should We Have Guns?" thread. There are PLENTY of pro-Second Amendment media out there. And they are active. If we don't hear about actual armed citizens thwarting criminals, I don't assume because nobody is reporting it.

Digasi said:
RecoilRob isn't saying there are not those out there, rather that those few don't represent the majority
I did not mean to suggest that the worst of this demographic represents the majority. I wouldn't imagine that about any group. But it bears keeping in mind that an armed idiot or assh*le is a dangerous idiot or assh*le. And education, training, and screening efforts are not necessarily part of a blanket campaign by the black helicopters to destroy America, one gun at a time.
BTW, Obama's still got two and a half days, hide your guns!:lmao:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,042 Posts
Discussion Starter #32
..
I did not mean to suggest that the worst of this demographic represents the majority. I wouldn't imagine that about any group. But it bears keeping in mind that an armed idiot or assh*le is a dangerous idiot or assh*le. And education, training, and screening efforts are not necessarily part of a blanket campaign by the black helicopters to destroy America, one gun at a time.
BTW, Obama's still got two and a half days, hide your guns!:lmao:
I just wanted to take the chance to point out that there are a lot of proponents of gun control that do or at the very least don't want to differentiate there is a difference. This is a problem because at the very least, sniffles the ability to work together to come up with solutions.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,042 Posts
Discussion Starter #33
It is not about those incidents representing the majority. It is about minimizing those incidents to the level possible. The reasonable gun control people want to ensure guns are not in the hands of people that want to do harm. The reasonable non-gun control people seek alternatives to solving that problem. Note that I did not mention either extreme because they are both beyond reason. If we could get these two groups to recognize they are seeking the same results and to work together, we may actually make progress but the extremes seem to drive the narrative.
I see these incidents of representing the majority as part of the problem the two cant see they are working together. I think breaking this out and calling it the extreme view point might help some reasonable people to the table. I have faced this view point from some other wise very reasonable people on this subject.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
There were some very high profile examples of people carrying either initiating or overreacting with gunfire in situations that never needed to occur. Several notable ones in Florida. It may be that the blowback from those events served to remind the less-stable carrying population that over-reacting can never be Plan A.

It's always amazing how often the left makes this assertion yet ignores that it almost never actually happens.

The incidents of someone "initiating or overreacting" to a threat and causing harm are barely a statistical anomaly.
 

·
site supporter
Joined
·
6,095 Posts
An en banc panel (all of the judges, not just the three appointed usually to hear a particular case) of the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (covering the states of Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina ) just decided that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear is not as absolute as gun rights advocates had assumed the Supreme Court ruling in Heller made it. Interestingly, for years the Fourth Circuit has had a reputation for being fairly conservative.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Here is the kernel of the Court's opinion:
We conclude — contrary to the now vacated
decision of our prior panel — that the banned assault
weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the
Second Amendment. That is, we are convinced that the banned
assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those
arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most
useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out
as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach.
See 554 U.S. at
627 (rejecting the notion that the Second Amendment safeguards
“M-16 rifles and the like”)


Stay tuned for further outrage.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,042 Posts
Discussion Starter #36
An en banc panel (all of the judges, not just the three appointed usually to hear a particular case) of the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (covering the states of Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina ) just decided that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear is not as absolute as gun rights advocates had assumed the Supreme Court ruling in Heller made it. Interestingly, for years the Fourth Circuit has had a reputation for being fairly conservative.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Here is the kernel of the Court's opinion:
We conclude — contrary to the now vacated
decision of our prior panel — that the banned assault
weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the
Second Amendment. That is, we are convinced that the banned
assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those
arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most
useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out
as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach.
See 554 U.S. at
627 (rejecting the notion that the Second Amendment safeguards
“M-16 rifles and the like”)


Stay tuned for further outrage.
Problem is high capacity magazines have gone from being 30 to 10. If we follow the establish trend will be zero.

I really wish we would stop this nonsense of going after peoples rights and choices and actually focus on the problem. But hey going after the rights of those "EVIL" others is easier then solving our problems.
 

·
The Well-Leathered Mod
Joined
·
4,614 Posts
Originally Posted by Fatass SVS View Post
There were some very high profile examples of people carrying either initiating or overreacting with gunfire in situations that never needed to occur. Several notable ones in Florida. It may be that the blowback from those events served to remind the less-stable carrying population that over-reacting can never be Plan A.
It's always amazing how often the left makes this assertion yet ignores that it almost never actually happens.

The incidents of someone "initiating or overreacting" to a threat and causing harm are barely a statistical anomaly.

I do find it interesting how the inverse is argued for Refugees and terrorism.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,042 Posts
Discussion Starter #38
I do find it interesting how the inverse is argued for Refugees and terrorism.
Hypocrisy on both sides. Honestly, the action of the right going after refugees and terrorism and the left going after gun owners are basically the same wrong action. Its all blaming and controlling a group based on intolerance, fear and hate in order to gain more political power. We would be a better society if we oppose both these actions. Sadly we approve the action when it suites us and then oppose the very same action when others do it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,345 Posts
If you ever find consistency in politics, please let me know. One party wants smaller government but wants to control personal choices they don't agree with. One screams tolerance but wants to silence opposing views from the public realm. Both only seem to care about the parts of the constitution they agree with and then either ignore or try to alter the meaning of parts they don't agree with. Both claim to be for the American people and helping the common man yet pass legislation that lines the pockets of wealthy campaign donors instead. We hold none of them accountable because party has become more important in politics than anything else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,745 Posts
So...what does this mean for all of you gun owners in MD? Is it now illegal to own these rifles and magazines? Or is it just they prohibit future sales? If they try to do what they did other places and make you register or turn them in.....resist. It's the Constitutional thing to do.:) If things get ugly and the Gov gets oppressive on you....rest assured you have friends here in PA that will cross the border to lend a hand.
 
21 - 40 of 44 Posts
Top