1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!
  2. We're giving away over $1,000 in prizes this month in the Northwest Firearms Winter Giveaway!
    Dismiss Notice

Realistic Look at Guns

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by solv3nt, Dec 20, 2012.

  1. solv3nt

    solv3nt Portland Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
  2. Lush

    Lush Seattle, Washington, United States Active Member

    Likes Received:
    very good read
  3. Squidly

    Squidly Sandy Active Member

    Likes Received:
  4. ShootFirst

    ShootFirst Southern Oregon Active Member

    Likes Received:
  5. Sling Blade

    Sling Blade Yamhill County Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Darn good summation of the playing field - thanks for sharing it!
  6. accessbob

    accessbob Molalla, OR 2A Supporter

    Likes Received:
    One of the most rational "anti" slants I've seen/heard. I disagree with a few points but overall it would be much better if the people calling for controls had this as their view. I still disagree that magazine capacity is over rated as far as an argument for the anti's go. I do agree that the media is the one which aids and abets these crimes. But again, that is just as hard to quantify as quantifying the number of crimes averted by gun owners who don't fire their guns but simply having them or showing them stops something. The number of the types of killings are so statistically low but extremely high on the media meter. The horror of it plays right into the hands of the media which reports every one of them and reports none, or very little, of the good stuff.
  7. huthuthike

    huthuthike Hillsboro OR Active Member

    Likes Received:
    I've had a lot of the same questions regarding what gun control can do about the problem and had come to a similar conclusion. It would be difficult to enforce a ban on purchase/transfer or possession of semi-automatic weapons. There are designs over 100 years old and have millions of guns produced that are semi-automatic. The amount of time, money and energy used to enforce this would make Prohibition look like a church picnic.
    Limiting magazine sizes seems ineffective, I honestly don't believe that it would prevent violence like Newtown and am not convinced that introducing mag changes would decrease the body count. I know I'm being insensitive but I haven't heard anyone say they were glad it wasn't 22 instead of 20 or that they wished it was only 13 kids that got killed. Limiting mags only changes the final number not the underlying issue.
    Microstamping (not addressed in the article) does not prevent anything, only aids investigations.
    Limiting specific types will only increase popularity for other types capable of the same purpose
    Honestly, the article is right:
    "The First Amendment protects a robust right to expression. A parallel exists with the Second Amendment, another emblem of freedom, forged in the 18th century yet still hallowed generations later. These uniquely American rights come with tremendous responsibilities - — and haunting costs. "
    The right to bear arms allows millions of people to have fun, protect themselves, remove pests, connect to history and provide food. It also has allowed many people with dozens of other factorsa tool to kill innocents.

    I just don't see a way to make a meaningful change but I understand the process is about individual agendas rather than logic.
    nforest and (deleted member) like this.