Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ruffdaddysmooth t1_j9u1eh9 wrote

It's a start... Banning guns all together is still a decade away but we will get there.. All the gun nuts will be so mad 😂

−17

Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9u1q0x wrote

So interesting that you’re cheering about losing rights.

4

gamerongames t1_j9u85hy wrote

What are you smoking? Seriously? What right are you losing, the right to forgive eating a whopper after the firing range ?

1

ThePermafrost t1_j9u6r91 wrote

Sacrificing the right to guns, to gain the right to safety is a small price to pay.

−3

Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9uca6m wrote

This is a very shortsighted opinion that isn’t even supported by basic facts.

6

ThePermafrost t1_j9udrcp wrote

Are you saying that it’s safer for a non gun owner to be surrounded by people with guns, as opposed to being surrounded by people without guns?

−5

Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9uey69 wrote

The data says yes. Gun ownership is at all time highs and gun violence is far lower than it was even a few decades ago.

8

ThePermafrost t1_j9umic1 wrote

Correlation does not equal causation.

Would you feel safer entering an armed confrontation, unarmed?

−2

Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9upi5c wrote

I think understanding the rights and responsibilities of gun ownership is a cornerstone of this country and being a good citizen.

6

ThePermafrost t1_j9upr6r wrote

So would you feel safer as an unarmed person going up against an armed, or unarmed assailant?

0

Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9uqtjc wrote

What is this grand point you’re trying to make? The individual is the person most responsible for their own safety and a firearm is the best choice to defend yourself.

4

ThePermafrost t1_j9uth71 wrote

So you’re saying I’m forced to carry a gun, to protect myself against people who choose to carry a gun, just to be on equal footing in a confrontation, all because some people refuse to pass laws to limit access to guns?

Why is my right to be safe without a firearm being taken away?

0

Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9uukwy wrote

Again, we’re at the highest level of gun ownership in the history of the country yet also have almost generational lows in violent crime. I think you’re going to be ok.

5

ThePermafrost t1_j9vgzh5 wrote

You keep deflecting the actual question.

−1

Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9vtrek wrote

What question am I deflecting?

3

ThePermafrost t1_j9w2mpm wrote

Why my right to be safe without a firearm is trumped by your right to a firearm.

Why I need to carry a firearm to avoid being disadvantaged by an assailant with easy access to firearms due to relaxed firearm regulations.

−1

Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9wb6vm wrote

You’re asking for the right to a utopia, which does not exist. No where in the world is crime free and you are the person most responsible for your safety and health.

CT has some of the most stringent firearms laws in the country and yet Hartford experienced near record homicides last year. More laws won’t prevent criminals from using guns, so you need to do what you feel is necessary to minimize your chances of being a victim.

In a world in which guns are banned, the only people who will have guns are the government and the criminals. That’s not a world I’d want to live in.

3

ThePermafrost t1_j9wlfoz wrote

I’m not asking for a Utopia - I’m asking for what countries like the UK or Australia have accomplished - having a reasonable assumption that it’s nearly impossible to find yourself in an armed conflict with another citizen.

It doesn’t matter how strict CT’s laws are if guns can easily be transported over the state border.

When guns are banned ordinary criminals can’t get access to them. Nobody is going to pull a gun on you in a road rage incident, or a domestic dispute, or an altercation out in public, or a local mugging, or robbery, or impulse school shooting. Sure, I’ll concede that extremely organized crime will be able to smuggle guns into the country, but I’m not concerned about encountering an organized crime ring in CT - and even if I did, I highly doubt whatever guns I would carry around with me daily would match the guns they would have at their disposal.

0

Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9x0qco wrote

The uk and Australia are islands so it’s much easier to interdict illegal items. Even there drugs are rampant. You don’t think with the huge borders of Mexico and Canada that illegal guns will still be easily transported? And what about the legal guns here, are you planning to confiscate them and turn millions of law abiding citizens today into felons tomorrow? Your idea is utopian and doesn’t take into account hard realities.

2

ThePermafrost t1_j9x52y8 wrote

Again, it’s not going to be easy for the average criminal to obtain illegal guns that cross the border.

And no, we could do a gun return program over the period of three months. And yes, anyone who willfully breaks the law would be committing a felony. It’s similar to when slavery ended. Yes, all of a sudden it was federally against the law to own people and that would have been a felony to continue owning people.

1

Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9yff3t wrote

If it’s so difficult to get things across the border, why do we have such a problem with drugs and illegal immigration? Why would you want to live in a society where only the government and criminals have guns? I’m a cop and I can tell you I’m not going door to door confiscating what were previously legal firearms.

2

ThePermafrost t1_j9z0du0 wrote

Wouldn’t it make your job as a cop safer knowing that it would be less likely a civilian would have access to a firearm during a routine traffic stop, domestic altercation, or any response call?

I’m not arguing that illegal items can pass over the border, but that’s not an argument to not ban something. Should we just give up fighting illegal immigration and fully open our borders because some people get through illegally?

Yet I imagine you had no problem confiscating marijuana when it was illegal? 🤔

1

Fun-Cockroach8339 t1_j9z4sn2 wrote

The overwhelming majority of legal gun owners are not people I’m afraid about. In the world you you’re suggesting, the illegal guns would still be out there. Nothing would have changed it that regard.

As for weed, I very rarely made strictly marijuana possession arrests. The right to marijuana also isn’t in the bill of rights. Weed was always an easy way to search a car looking for something else like illegal guns. Personally, I think most drugs should be legal, but that’s a different discussion.

2

ruffdaddysmooth t1_j9u63ka wrote

I’m cheering that YOU will lose rights.

−11

Downtown_Feedback665 t1_j9uedwp wrote

Banning guns altogether in the United States is a laughable proposition. They might regulate it out of the general populace’s hands, but guns will remain. This coming from someone who’s pro gun control.

I mean people in this argument tend to not see gun owners as simple hobbyists, but the vast majority are just that - hobbyists. It’s largely not even for “protection”. Sure it’s a hobby that has lethal ramifications, but it’s a hobby nonetheless. Most people have guns simply because they like guns.

When looked at as a hobby it can be compared to other things people do for fun. Something that’s not as dangerous but still has regulations. For instance, it’s illegal to fly Fpv drones without a part 107 FAA license, a HAM amateur radio license, and a spotter to see line of site at all times.

People end up flying these drones without any licenses or spotters, sometimes crashing into cars, breaking windows, causing damage, etc. The regulations didn’t kill the hobby, people partake anyway (even with more regulations on the way)

Now imagine everyone and their moms has a drone, then the government says “we’re outright banning all drones” the idea that you could get all the drones off the street would prove to be futile. Especially if there are more drones(guns) than people in the nation. Now imagine the right to own and operate drones are an inalienable right that is bestowed on the people via the constitution.

The hobby will survive regardless of regulation.

Now taxing bullets? I’m all for. Guns should be treated with the same sin taxes as tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, etc imo. Just to pay for the damage gun owners do within this country annually. The same reason tobacco has a sin tax justified because someone needs to pay for the extra care per smoking patient on the backend.

Gun sin taxes should go to families of victims, to fixing damages of public property, to fixing the temperature of some of these inner cities to not have so many regular gun fights.

2