Seriously, why are Libs against guns and their owners?

[ElChupacabra]

People that are afraid of guns are stupid. It's as simple as that.

Guns don't kill people without a person controlling it. It's an inanimate object. Without a human it's less dangerous than a tree. Why do I say that? Because a tree can lose a limb or fall over and kill you. What is a gun on a nightstand going to do to you? Absolutely nothing.

Could be knocked off the nightstand and accidentally discharge killing somebody. #JustSayin

Not likely but possible...

I'm what you may refer to as a "Libtard" but also love guns. If I had infinite cash I'd have a full arsenal of all the same things you guys probably want. I own guns. That being said, I own guns because they're fun and I like shooting. I don't buy into the fear mongering tossed around by most of the Right trying to convince me that somebody is going to break into my house and rape my wife, or I'm going to find myself in the middle of a terrorist attack, or in the middle of an armed robbery somewhere, or a government take-down. I live in a decent gentrified neighborhood right next to a pretty shitty neighborhood where I can actually hear gunshots while sitting on my back deck a few blocks away some nights. I'm way more likely to encounter a bad situation and I still don't live in fear. I own guns for fun, that's it. I'm 100% for gun control reform. There's no reason I need to own military grade weapons. No reason, you won't convince me otherwise. I may WANT an AR15 but I don't NEED one. I support an assault weapon ban and I definitely support more in depth and consistent background checks.

 

[Meatwad]

What encompasses more in depth background checks?

There are plenty of things that nobody needs, hell everything on this site is a luxury industry.

 

[Pete9]

I've avoided the political stuff so far in this forum, but it seems like OP is interested in a real conversation, so I'll give this a shot. I consider myself a liberal, but I really don't recognize any of my actual views in what conservatives on tv or radio say liberals think. I say that just so if you want to know what I think, I'll tell you, but it may not be what you think "liberals" think. I'm sure the same thing goes in reverse too.

Ok, so here's what I think about guns. I don't own any. I think shooting is fun. I'd happily go with friends to a gun range and shoot again, though it isn't something I do very often. I think there should be reasonable restrictions on gun purchases that currently are not in place. These restrictions include background checks for all gun purchases, including those between private sellers. I think that it is fine to have outright bans on certain kinds of firearms or firearms accessories that are especially dangerous, or that make it especially easy to use firearms for illegal purposes up to and including murder (like silencers, extended magazines, and so on).
I recognize that the types of restrictions I mention above will not eliminate all deaths from firearms, whether accidental or intentional. I still think there's a good argument, based on a concern for public safety, that these types of measures prevent some deaths. We have similar restrictions on other types of potentially dangerous things, and similar restrictions on other constitutional rights. For example, there are lots of restrictions on motor vehicles that are based on a concern for public good. These include regulations that require cars to pass certain safety standards, seat belt laws, and other restrictions on what we are allowed to do with our cars if we want to drive them on public roads. For example, I'm not allowed to drive around with giant metal spikes on many car (even though it's pretty unlikely that I'll actually hit someone with them).
Constitutional rights are also restricted in various ways. Free speech is restricted: I can say what I want, but not if there's a direct threat of harm to someone else (like, incitement to riot). Also, there are time and place restrictions that don't refer to the content of speech. I can say what I want, but not loudly at 3am on a suburban street. Take freedom of assembly: we have the freedom to assemble, but cities can require a permit so that the freedom to assemble is made consistent with other individual rights and state obligation, such as the right to freedom of movement (which could be restricted if an assembled group were to block my way) and the state's obligation to ensure public safety.
If you've read this far, well, damn, thanks I guess. My last thing is about the Constitution itself, which I love. My understanding is that the Second Amendment was put in the Constitution primarily out of a concern for defense against other nations, not out of concern for tyranny of our own gov't. Instead, there was a history of having state militias, and the right to bear arms was both a right a duty. It meant that each individual should have a rifle or musket, and participate in on-going training so that if needed, militias could be called up for public defense - called up by the state, not against it. There were not "unlimited" gun rights at the time of the Constitutional Convention or after - states and cities had all kinds of regulations about what firearms could be privately owned, and limits on carrying firearms in public, and so on and so on. In this context, "well-regulated" means "well-functioning" but also involves limits and restrictions.
We no longer exist in a world where we require a public militia for national defense. We have our armed forces for that, and though I have not served I'm proud to say that my other members of my family have. The armed forces are absolutely not full of people who are going to hurt our country or pull off a coup. (This is something that gets me a little worked up. I feel like its very disrespectful to people who literally put their lives on the line for all of us - and in a way I never have.)

Alright, sorry for the freaking novel. I guess I had a lot kind of pent up. I'm happy to have a conversation with anyone who wants to.

-Pete

 

[calcagno45]

I'm what you may refer to as a "Libtard" but also love guns. If I had infinite cash I'd have a full arsenal of all the same things you guys probably want. I own guns. That being said, I own guns because they're fun and I like shooting. I don't buy into the fear mongering tossed around by most of the Right trying to convince me that somebody is going to break into my house and rape my wife, or I'm going to find myself in the middle of a terrorist attack, or in the middle of an armed robbery somewhere, or a government take-down. I live in a decent gentrified neighborhood right next to a pretty shitty neighborhood where I can actually hear gunshots while sitting on my back deck a few blocks away some nights. I'm way more likely to encounter a bad situation and I still don't live in fear. I own guns for fun, that's it. I'm 100% for gun control reform. There's no reason I need to own military grade weapons. No reason, you won't convince me otherwise. I may WANT an AR15 but I don't NEED one. I support an assault weapon ban and I definitely support more in depth and consistent background checks.

Assault weapons are banned by the NFA. Modern sporting rifles are not. It's all in the semantics.

And since you enjoy shooting guns, should you be limited as to which guns you enjoy shooting? Or shooting any gun as long as the barrel length is X long? If you had infinite money, what types of guns would you fill your arsenal with? I can't imagine it being only revolvers and bolt action long guns?

I love guns and 2A and for that reason, I don't think any guns should be banned regardless of looks, mechanical functions, barrel lengths or whatever they come up with. None of that plays a part in to lethality as all guns a lethal so you can't pick and choose which to ban or not to. Its and all or nothing game and I'm for banning nothing.
If harm is the end goal of an individual, harm will take place. Shoot straight into a crowd with a 338 Lapua bolt gun and one body isn't stopping that round. The dumbass that just shot up the AT&T trucks, without a gun he's knifing the tires and beating the trucks with a bat. Columbine had home made explosives and knives. Idiots in Europe used vehicles recently to level out people. Take away the guns and violence doesn't just stop.

 

[calcagno45]

Ok, so here's what I think about guns. I don't own any. I think shooting is fun. I'd happily go with friends to a gun range and shoot again, though it isn't something I do very often. I think there should be reasonable restrictions on gun purchases that currently are not in place. These restrictions include background checks for all gun purchases, including those between private sellers. I think that it is fine to have outright bans on certain kinds of firearms or firearms accessories that are especially dangerous, or that make it especially easy to use firearms for illegal purposes up to and including murder (like silencers, extended magazines, and so on).

I did read your whole response but have to single this out.

I don't have a problem with the background checks, they already exist even at gun shows which people try to discount. Face to face transactions do exist and most are not conducting background checks as most as selling to legitimate people that want to lawfully own a gun and are adding to collections. Implementing background checks for all face to face private transactions still will not fix the illegal use or possession of a firearm. Many felons deal arms to other felons and will continue, there will always be a black market for guns regardless of the law on the books.

Please watch a YouTube video on silencers/suppressors. Guns equipped with these still ring out 130db which is not movie like silent. There's no pin drop like sound coming from a suppressor handgun or rifle.
Please also watch the videos of competitive shooting and witness how fast reloads can be made even if the magazine is limited to 10 rounds. If harm is intended, harm will occur.

 

[JatoTheRipper]

Could be knocked off the nightstand and accidentally discharge killing somebody. #JustSayin

Not likely but possible...

I'm what you may refer to as a "Libtard" but also love guns. If I had infinite cash I'd have a full arsenal of all the same things you guys probably want. I own guns. That being said, I own guns because they're fun and I like shooting. I don't buy into the fear mongering tossed around by most of the Right trying to convince me that somebody is going to break into my house and rape my wife, or I'm going to find myself in the middle of a terrorist attack, or in the middle of an armed robbery somewhere, or a government take-down. I live in a decent gentrified neighborhood right next to a pretty shitty neighborhood where I can actually hear gunshots while sitting on my back deck a few blocks away some nights. I'm way more likely to encounter a bad situation and I still don't live in fear. I own guns for fun, that's it. I'm 100% for gun control reform. There's no reason I need to own military grade weapons. No reason, you won't convince me otherwise. I may WANT an AR15 but I don't NEED one. I support an assault weapon ban and I definitely support more in depth and consistent background checks.

Lots of liberals like guns. Not all liberals are intelligent just like not all republicans are intelligent.

What's your definition of an assault rifle?

Background checks only delay getting guns into the hands of legal people. Criminals don't complete background checks. They buy stolen guns.

I do think mentally unstable people shouldn't be able to own guns. I also think they shouldn't be allowed to operate motor vehicles either. They are dangerous weapons in the wrong hands. But then you always face those that cry "discrimination". Discrimination is not always bad IMO.

I also own guns for fun, but it doesn't hurt having them on hand in case you get attacked. I also don't live in fear. Life is too short for that.

 

[Pete9]

I did read your whole response but have to single this out.

I don't have a problem with the background checks, they already exist even at gun shows which people try to discount. Face to face transactions do exist and most are not conducting background checks as most as selling to legitimate people that want to lawfully own a gun and are adding to collections. Implementing background checks for all face to face private transactions still will not fix the illegal use or possession of a firearm. Many felons deal arms to other felons and will continue, there will always be a black market for guns regardless of the law on the books.

Please watch a YouTube video on silencers/suppressors. Guns equipped with these still ring out 130db which is not movie like silent. There's no pin drop like sound coming from a suppressor handgun or rifle.
Please also watch the videos of competitive shooting and witness how fast reloads can be made even if the magazine is limited to 10 rounds. If harm is intended, harm will occur.

Honestly, thanks for reading the whole thing. I understand that the "gun show loophole" doesn't apply to all gun show sales. Still, there are legal ways to purchase firearms in some states to avoid background checks. I definitely recognize, also, that people sell weapons illegally. However, in many cases those weapons were initially bought legally. In places like Chicago and NYC, many of the firearms are initially purchased by "straw buyers," and then are sold on illegally. The more difficult it is for someone to purchase a firearm for the purposes of selling them on illegally, the less likely it is to happen. It will still happen sometimes, but fewer people with illegal guns, the better. It's just like anything: no law completely eliminates a behavior, but smart regulation can reduce social ills. Speed limits don't prevent people from driving faster, but with effective enforcement, they do tend to keep most people driving within a few mph of each other, and it's extremely rare (at least where I live) to see someone screaming down a neighborhood street at 70 mph.

Also, I take your point about silencers (I've heard them - not in person but in recordings of actual firing using silencers). But the substantial reduction in volume and change in the character of the sound means that people are less likely to recognize gunshots, which means it is easier to get away with shooting someone even if someone hears it. Pretty much all of my arguments are going to look like these ones: no law or regulation will be perfect or eliminate all violence, but I still think it makes sense to balance the right to bear arms (and really, every single other right we have) against other rights (like my right not to be killed unjustly) and legitimate state obligations like maintaining property rights and public safety and national defense etc.

 

[CM9000]

any firearm in the wrong hands can kill/ harm a living being. any firearm in the right hands besides the military and 5-0 could save a life or more. now.. here is where somebody will argue, what if they miss? I got something for ya. this world is full of what if's. I don't care what type of firearm you own short of an AT-4 and up... own it. use it properly. just don't be stupid and walk around with a p-90 or a L115.

guns are cool m'kay

 

[JatoTheRipper]

any firearm in the wrong hands can kill/ harm a living being. any firearm in the right hands besides the military and 5-0 could save a life or more. now.. here is where somebody will argue, what if they miss? I got something for ya. this world is full of what if's. I don't care what type of firearm you own short of an AT-4 and up... own it. use it properly. just don't be stupid and walk around with a p-90 or a L115.

guns are cool m'kay

Growing up in a small town people would drive all over with rifles hanging on the racks in the windows of their pickup trucks. Kids would do the same and drive their trucks to school so they could go hunting or shooting after work. Nobody batted an eye. There were no school shootings. What changed? Not the guns. The people did.

 

[calcagno45]

Honestly, thanks for reading the whole thing. I understand that the "gun show loophole" doesn't apply to all gun show sales. Still, there are legal ways to purchase firearms in some states to avoid background checks. I definitely recognize, also, that people sell weapons illegally. However, in many cases those weapons were initially bought legally. In places like Chicago and NYC, many of the firearms are initially purchased by "straw buyers," and then are sold on illegally. The more difficult it is for someone to purchase a firearm for the purposes of selling them on illegally, the less likely it is to happen. It will still happen sometimes, but fewer people with illegal guns, the better. It's just like anything: no law completely eliminates a behavior, but smart regulation can reduce social ills. Speed limits don't prevent people from driving faster, but with effective enforcement, they do tend to keep most people driving within a few mph of each other, and it's extremely rare (at least where I live) to see someone screaming down a neighborhood street at 70 mph.

Also, I take your point about silencers (I've heard them - not in person but in recordings of actual firing using silencers). But the substantial reduction in volume and change in the character of the sound means that people are less likely to recognize gunshots, which means it is easier to get away with shooting someone even if someone hears it. Pretty much all of my arguments are going to look like these ones: no law or regulation will be perfect or eliminate all violence, but I still think it makes sense to balance the right to bear arms (and really, every single other right we have) against other rights (like my right not to be killed unjustly) and legitimate state obligations like maintaining property rights and public safety and national defense etc.

Straw purchases are spelled out in law as being illegal. The initial purchase of the gun which legal and clearing background checks is still illegal as the intent is to purchase for someone that cannot purchase legally. Essentially, still black market play except being in a commercial setting and the retailer has no clue of the purchaser's intent unless they slip up and say what they are doing. I don't see how any laws will prevent or partially prevent illegal gun purchases. The black market will only get stronger thus governments losing out on tax dollars.... :shock:
There's plenty of laws that currently exist and regulate gun ownership, all of which will not stop criminal activity or momentary mental incapacity.


Other than concerts, manufacturing areas, and other places of general loud surroundings, 130-135db of suppressed gunshots will still ring out and people will be aware, unless they're deaf. Same thing with barrel lengths of less than 16" on a rifle and 18.5" on a shotgun. Shorter barrel lengths make them fire slower projectiles less accurately. Shorter barrels do not make them more concealable either. I can conceal my Glock 17 with 33round magazines far better than a 10" barreled AR15.

 

[Sneetches]

I've found that most anti-gun people haven't even fired a gun before.

 

[dkf]

Assault weapons are banned by the NFA. Modern sporting rifles are not. It's all in the semantics.

"Assault Weapons" is a BS term made up by liberals.(circa 1994) Assault Rifles are select fire rifles. (fully automatic/ burst etc) Look on the ATF website for actual definitions. Machine guns and assault rifles are not banned under the NFA, models made after 1986 just cannot be owned unless you have the proper licensing from the ATF.(like a manufacturer of firearms) Machine guns, assault rifles, etc made prior to 1986 must be registered, tax stamp paid, paperwork filled out, background check, listed on your trust, etc. Takes a while but they can be owned after you jump through the hoops and pay the money.

Machine guns are super fun if you can afford them, which is getting harder to do with every passing year.

Honestly, thanks for reading the whole thing. I understand that the "gun show loophole" doesn't apply to all gun show sales.

The "gun show loophole" is another made up term by liberals. Most of whom never fired a gun or stepped foot into a gun show themselves. In my state face to face sales of long guns are legal for private parties. If you are an FFL holder you have to run a background check by law on the buyer regardless if the gun is sold at a gun show or at his shop. Everyone makes a big deal over background checks but they really have not been around very long and really accomplish nothing but add hoops to jump through to appease the antis. FAR more people get their purchase denied from a false background check denial each year than legit denials. The legit denials (like a felon trying to buy a gun) usually do not get visited by LE anyway after the denial like they are supposed to.

 

[NoobCrawler]

Could be knocked off the nightstand and accidentally discharge killing somebody. #JustSayin

Not likely but possible...

I'm what you may refer to as a "Libtard" but also love guns. If I had infinite cash I'd have a full arsenal of all the same things you guys probably want. I own guns. That being said, I own guns because they're fun and I like shooting. I don't buy into the fear mongering tossed around by most of the Right trying to convince me that somebody is going to break into my house and rape my wife, or I'm going to find myself in the middle of a terrorist attack, or in the middle of an armed robbery somewhere, or a government take-down. I live in a decent gentrified neighborhood right next to a pretty shitty neighborhood where I can actually hear gunshots while sitting on my back deck a few blocks away some nights. I'm way more likely to encounter a bad situation and I still don't live in fear. I own guns for fun, that's it. I'm 100% for gun control reform. There's no reason I need to own military grade weapons. No reason, you won't convince me otherwise. I may WANT an AR15 but I don't NEED one. I support an assault weapon ban and I definitely support more in depth and consistent background checks.

So...because you don't need them...nobody should be able to own? That's an interesting stance. :roll:

 

[badhoopty]

has there never been conservatives/republicans/christians who want stricter gun laws?

or is it just the evil liberals?

 

[calcagno45]

has there never been conservatives/republicans/christians who want stricter gun laws?

or is it just the evil liberals?

I don't want criminals to have guns.

 

[Pete9]

Straw purchases are spelled out in law as being illegal. The initial purchase of the gun which legal and clearing background checks is still illegal as the intent is to purchase for someone that cannot purchase legally. Essentially, still black market play except being in a commercial setting and the retailer has no clue of the purchaser's intent unless they slip up and say what they are doing. I don't see how any laws will prevent or partially prevent illegal gun purchases. The black market will only get stronger thus governments losing out on tax dollars.... :shock:
There's plenty of laws that currently exist and regulate gun ownership, all of which will not stop criminal activity or momentary mental incapacity.

Yup, straw purchasing is illegal. But, it's tough to track when buyers can purchase from private sellers without any background check or other tracking mechanism. So, enforcement of the law is crippled by a lack of information. The "gun show loophole" is not a liberal invention: it's a description of an actual loophole in the law governing background checks that used to be taken advantage of primarily at gun shows. Nowadays, it's easy to arrange private sells over the internet. Studies that look at where guns used in crimes come from show that the majority were purchased legally in a state with lesser restrictions and then resold in states with more control measures - this suggests straw buyers. (Here's a link to an article reviewing studies.)

Research shows that laws that regulate gun purchases help to decrease gun violence. I'm not for any stupid law. I want laws that actually work. I don't want to deny people guns for fun - I'm only for laws and regulations that reduce gun violence. Again, no law or regulation will be perfect, but if we can substantially reduce gun violence at the cost of making gun purchases more inconvenient, or even banning access to some types of firearms (and while "assault weapon" is not a category used by firearm producers, it is defined in law. If you have a better suggestion for a definition of firearms that present a particularly high level of threat to the public, go for it. No law is perfect and I'm all for more rational regulation, including getting rid of regulations that on balance undermine our rights and liberties.) Here's an NPR article reviewing resaearch that shows that background checks, at least those that require applying for a license which includes a background checks, substantially reduce gun violence.

 

[NoobCrawler]

Yup, straw purchasing is illegal. But, it's tough to track when buyers can purchase from private sellers without any background check or other tracking mechanism. So, enforcement of the law is crippled by a lack of information. The "gun show loophole" is not a liberal invention: it's a description of an actual loophole in the law governing background checks that used to be taken advantage of primarily at gun shows. Nowadays, it's easy to arrange private sells over the internet. Studies that look at where guns used in crimes come from show that the majority were purchased legally in a state with lesser restrictions and then resold in states with more control measures - this suggests straw buyers. (Here's a link to an article reviewing studies.)

Research shows that laws that regulate gun purchases help to decrease gun violence. I'm not for any stupid law. I want laws that actually work. I don't want to deny people guns for fun - I'm only for laws and regulations that reduce gun violence. Again, no law or regulation will be perfect, but if we can substantially reduce gun violence at the cost of making gun purchases more inconvenient, or even banning access to some types of firearms (and while "assault weapon" is not a category used by firearm producers, it is defined in law. If you have a better suggestion for a definition of firearms that present a particularly high level of threat to the public, go for it. No law is perfect and I'm all for more rational regulation, including getting rid of regulations that on balance undermine our rights and liberties.) Here's an NPR article reviewing resaearch that shows that background checks, at least those that require applying for a license which includes a background checks, substantially reduce gun violence.

Laws don't work. Well, I should say excessive. Look at CA. We have the strictest laws among the states, yet we have at least half a dozen cities that have shootings/deaths daily. Since you mentioned over state lines, we have laws for that too. You're suposed to declare when entering the state.

As for strawman purchases, what good are background checks in this case? You can't interpret intent from a buyer. Calling for more checks seems like a false front, like "look at me! I'm making an effort!" without doing anything at all.

 

[WHITE-TRASH]

I've found that most people that have espoused to be a liberal isn't really all that liberal they just want to put themselves in that group for whatever reason. People want to brand themselves on one end of the pole and in order to do it they ignore their true feelings so they can claim one extreme or another.

Myself I'm socially pretty liberal but fiscally very conservative. I simply don't care what you do behind closed doors as long as you don't feel the need to tell everyone about it. Poke whoever you want, smoke whatever you want and get married to anyone or anything that makes you happy and if your actions land you in an abortion clinic or at the Dr with a disconcerting drip from your nether regions then that's on you to pay for but the services should be available. It doesn't make a lick of difference to my day and it doesn't cost me money for you to do it then have at it. That's a pretty liberal point of view compared to many but I don't brand myself a liberal.

My fiscal views are very conservative and probably borderline crazy but I'm huge on personal responsibility.



As far as what's been posted there are too many bullet points (pun fully intended) directly from msnbc and cnn to take it seriously.

Silencers haven't been used in more than a handful of instances of violence outside of what you see in the movies. Like ever. :lol: They don't turn a BANG into a slight almost whistle sound, not even close as pointed out. There is no need to feel them. Most people I know that have them only use them when target shooting so they aren't so intrusive to those around them.

Bullet buttons, high capacity magazine laws and the like are a joke. Just like 99% of gun laws on the books they only effect the legal gun owners. Criminals by the very term of them are law breakers so they simle don't care about such crap. Some of the tightest gun laws in the US are in Chicago, I know we bring that up a lot but no matter if it's the whole city that's at war or one neighborhood the gun violence is going crazy and it isn't the law abiding citizenry following the gun laws doing the shooting. Go figure.

That's all my pea brain can process right now, I'll probably go on later but I've been up since midnight and I just got off work so I'm fried. :lol:

 

[Pete9]

Silencers haven't been used in more than a handful of instances of violence outside of what you see in the movies. Like ever. :lol: They don't turn a BANG into a slight almost whistle sound, not even close as pointed out. There is no need to feel them. Most people I know that have them only use them when target shooting so they aren't so intrusive to those around them.

Yeah, not least because they are heavily regulated (but not banned) and relatively difficult for the average jerk to get ahold of. Here's a video of a dude using a silencer on a walther to give y'all a sense of the difference. I guess I don't get why we would need to make silencers more easily available when the legitimate problem they solve (guns are loud and hurt hearing) can be easily solved by cheap ass earplugs and silencers present a danger of harm to others by making it easier to get away with shooting someone.

I feel like I'm getting lost in the weeds over a small issue when the big issue is about firearms more generally. If there's evidence that suggests easily available silencers do not have any impact on gun violence then I totally drop my objection, but what I've seen suggests otherwise.

 

[vonclod]

Here is a fun gun story..make of it what you will
Florida man shoots out tires of AT&T truck he claims was blocking his driveway - National | Globalnews.ca