Gun owners living in gun control states

[Cobra Jet]

In NJ here - one of the so called “strict” States.

I’m all for firearm ownership, from a hobby perspective, from a “rights” perspective and from a protection standpoint. I personally have my gun permit as well being a firearm owner. I don’t go posting pics of what I have or flaunt what I have, nor do I really talk about it amongst anyone outside of my immediate personal circle. I also don’t act all “bad ass” like some gun owners out there... I do hope that some day NJ allows Concealed & Carry permits.

I went through the legal requirements of fingerprinting, back ground checks and the standard application process. Yes, I did wait MONTHS for my application to go through all of the proper channels and finally being approved.

With the above said:
I do believe in legally procuring a firearm, responsible firearms ownership and practicing gun safety.

OPINION:
I personally don’t feel that it is necessary to own 50+ guns in a single household, but hey if that is one’s hobby to each their own and if you really want to go deeper with that, it’s akin to saying to someone “hey, you can’t have 50 Mustangs”... yes, oranges to apples, but you get the point.

Now here is where I have an issue with those who rant and cry out about folks having or owning guns of any type or want to blame the NRA, 2nd Amendment or Gun Owners for this or that crime or heinous event:

It’s NOT going to matter one bit in our lifetime if there are additional laws, more stringent background checks or limitations to gun ownership that will reduce gun related violence. Why? Because you can have all the laws, legislation, mandatory screening processes as well as the best background checks possible... If a person can still legitimately get through ALL of the mandatory checks and balances and does own a single or multiple firearms... ask yourself the below and truthfully answer it:

What is to stop THAT SAME INDIVIDUAL from going bat shit crazy one day and using his/her firearms in a negative manner against another individual or group of individuals? Absolutely NOTHING will or could have prevented that hypothetical scenario.

Then what? What other laws, background checks, medical checks, provisions, processes or safety standardization will totally eliminate a person from committing such a heinous act if he/she was able to legally obtain a firearm through all of the existing OR future “stop gaps”?

Sure you can say the heinous acts or crimes using guns are only the result of “thugs”, “thieves”, “gangs”, “insane”, “crazy”, or “mindless” people. But that’s not true. In many instances folks who where known to be “regular” people in their inner circles or in society, people who had no priors and legally owned firearms are the same who have committed such crimes using those firearms and made headlines.

I don’t agree that any person should own an arsenal of fully automatic military grade firearms that can outpower any Federal or Local Govt. agencies. The problem is, if the gun manufacturer is manufacturing that type of weapon, is BEING ALLOWED to market it and legally sell it to the public, where is the so called limitation as to what can be or can’t be legally procured by a normal schmo who has the legal means and permits to purchase/own it? I mean there can’t be a one-way street.

Now I’d like to own a Thompson Submachine Gun with a drum magazine, but that’s impossible to legally do so in NJ and an original example can fetch as much as the price of a car... LOL... but I know, I just said the above about owning a military grade firearm... hypocritical yes, but from a hobby perspective, it’s totally logical.

In the US, there will never be a day where gun related violence will cease to exist. No one can predict when those who legally own firearms will go over the edge causing such heinous actions. The whole firearms arena is a huge MONEY maker for the manufacturers of firearms, ammo, accessories, underground black market and the Lobbyists. It’s like the Pharmacuetical sector and excessive manufacturing of drugs, too much money passes through too many hands and benefits those at the top.

There will never be a balance when it comes to the Pro-Gun and Anti-Gun discussions.

Sponsored

 

[Jimmy G]

....There will never be a balance when it comes to the Pro-Gun and Anti-Gun discussions.

Cool.

Can we agree on this? Guns are designed to kill. They are not designed to protect. Shields are designed to protect. Armour protects. Kevlar protects. Guns kill.

So for those who suggest they bought their gun for protection, lets just forget the bullshit 'cos you didn't buy it for that reason. You bought it because you can. If someone knocks on your door with a Glock in their waistband, you and your family are dead and the twelve AR15's you have for protection will be pawned off by your next of kin.

This is why less guns means less gun deaths. It's why NZ are reducing the number of guns available, and it's why Australia did. Yeah, the bad guys will have guns but as a rule they tend to shoot other bad guys. Removing guns from the good guys prevents many suicides, prevents five year olds accidentally shooting their sisters, prevents angry husbands killing their missus because her phone has a dick pic on it, and reduces the pool of guns that can be stolen and used by bad guys.

Ask yourselves this question. Of all the big mass shootings you've had in recent years, how many were done by "bad guys"? Columbine, Sandy Hook, Vegas, Pulse.....none of the shooters had a felony criminal record. They were all "good guys" with access to guns.

 

[Anthony 05 GT]

Jimmy boy, why don't you give it up? DON'T TREAD ON ME! I'm an American and we have a constitution here that most in the world consider special.

 

[Hack]

Can we agree on this? Guns are designed to kill. They are not designed to protect. Shields are designed to protect. Armour protects. Kevlar protects. Guns kill.

Sounds good but if you look at the facts it isn't true. If a criminal knows that the people inside the house probably have guns, the criminal is less likely to even try a home invasion. Areas of the US where more people legally own guns have less gun crime. Areas like Chicago where all guns are illegal see multiple people killed by guns every week.

 

[Weather Man]

Cool.

Can we agree on this? Guns are designed to kill. They are not designed to protect. Shields are designed to protect. Armour protects. Kevlar protects. Guns kill.

So for those who suggest they bought their gun for protection, lets just forget the bullshit 'cos you didn't buy it for that reason. You bought it because you can. If someone knocks on your door with a Glock in their waistband, you and your family are dead and the twelve AR15's you have for protection will be pawned off by your next of kin.

This is why less guns means less gun deaths. It's why NZ are reducing the number of guns available, and it's why Australia did. Yeah, the bad guys will have guns but as a rule they tend to shoot other bad guys. Removing guns from the good guys prevents many suicides, prevents five year olds accidentally shooting their sisters, prevents angry husbands killing their missus because her phone has a dick pic on it, and reduces the pool of guns that can be stolen and used by bad guys.

Ask yourselves this question. Of all the big mass shootings you've had in recent years, how many were done by "bad guys"? Columbine, Sandy Hook, Vegas, Pulse.....none of the shooters had a felony criminal record. They were all "good guys" with access to guns.

Unbiased research has shown Americans use their weapons without discharge to defend themselves over 1 million times a year. When the CDC found the same thing, the Obama administration buried the report.

It does not reduce the suicide rate, look at japan, it just means a lot more traumatized truck drivers.

Fewer guns means less death is the big lefty gun control lie. No surprise, lefties are a short bus ride from communism and fascism, harder to control the little people if they can resist. Which is EXACTLY why we have a 2nd amendment and it wasn't 2nd by accident.

New Zealanders are not exactly rushing to turn in their weapons, showing they have remarkably more common sense then their dipshit emoting leader.

 

[Docscurlock]

Cool.

Can we agree on this? Guns are designed to kill. They are not designed to protect. Shields are designed to protect. Armour protects. Kevlar protects. Guns kill.

So for those who suggest they bought their gun for protection, lets just forget the bullshit 'cos you didn't buy it for that reason. You bought it because you can. If someone knocks on your door with a Glock in their waistband, you and your family are dead and the twelve AR15's you have for protection will be pawned off by your next of kin.

This is why less guns means less gun deaths. It's why NZ are reducing the number of guns available, and it's why Australia did. Yeah, the bad guys will have guns but as a rule they tend to shoot other bad guys. Removing guns from the good guys prevents many suicides, prevents five year olds accidentally shooting their sisters, prevents angry husbands killing their missus because her phone has a dick pic on it, and reduces the pool of guns that can be stolen and used by bad guys.

Ask yourselves this question. Of all the big mass shootings you've had in recent years, how many were done by "bad guys"? Columbine, Sandy Hook, Vegas, Pulse.....none of the shooters had a felony criminal record. They were all "good guys" with access to guns.

At least you didn't bash my country or constitution today, so far.
"This is why less guns means less gun deaths." Didn't work out like that for Jews in the holocaust
". Yeah, the bad guys will have guns but as a rule they tend to shoot other bad guys. " Until they don't and you or me is next in line
" Removing guns from the good guys prevents many suicides" except pills, rope, carbon monoxide and long walks off a short pier work just as well
"prevents five year olds accidentally shooting their sisters" proper storage and teaching children to respect firearms can do this also
" prevents angry husbands killing their missus because her phone has a dick pic on it" so he can just run her over with the car or beat her with a hammer
"reduces the pool of guns that can be stolen and used by bad guys" I'm afraid there are too many guns out there to do this, maybe if we cut the hands off of criminals they couldn't pull the trigger
" Of all the big mass shootings you've had in recent years, how many were done by "bad guys"? All of them, the ability to carelessly take another human life without remorse is reprehensible. I would have no problem pulling the lever on the scaffold on any one of them.
"Can we agree on this? Guns are designed to kill. " I will agree on this 100%. Number one rule of gun handling is never point a gun at something you aren't willing to destroy.
Guns simply even the playing field between good people and bad people. Like the saying goes, God made all men, Samuel Colt made them equal.
Nice to see you back, I've missed you.

 

[Cobra Jet]

Cool.

Can we agree on this? Guns are designed to kill. They are not designed to protect. Shields are designed to protect. Armour protects. Kevlar protects. Guns kill.

So for those who suggest they bought their gun for protection, lets just forget the bullshit 'cos you didn't buy it for that reason. You bought it because you can. If someone knocks on your door with a Glock in their waistband, you and your family are dead and the twelve AR15's you have for protection will be pawned off by your next of kin.

This is why less guns means less gun deaths. It's why NZ are reducing the number of guns available, and it's why Australia did. Yeah, the bad guys will have guns but as a rule they tend to shoot other bad guys. Removing guns from the good guys prevents many suicides, prevents five year olds accidentally shooting their sisters, prevents angry husbands killing their missus because her phone has a dick pic on it, and reduces the pool of guns that can be stolen and used by bad guys.

Ask yourselves this question. Of all the big mass shootings you've had in recent years, how many were done by "bad guys"? Columbine, Sandy Hook, Vegas, Pulse.....none of the shooters had a felony criminal record. They were all "good guys" with access to guns.

Interesting response and discussion accepted...


Do you suggest that people walk around in full Kevlar from face to toe? Or should we wear a full suit of Armor?

Your opening statement is such as the glass is either half full or half empty. A firearm, just as a missile or any other type of projectile can be said to kill or protect - depending on which side of the projectile you’re on...

You think that by removing firearms from (insert any town or country here) that suicides would decrease or cease to exist? That’s a totally false ideology and thought - because suicide exists by any other means (OD, jumping off things, hanging one self, driving head on into X, razor or knifing one self, carbon monoxide, etc). That’s a totally moot argument if anything...

What NZ has done and what Australia is doing is saying there’s no need for civilians to have military grade weapons in a civilian environment. That’s fine and dandy and maybe that aspect is an avenue other towns or countries should follow.

BUT and again - here’s my comment to that discussion:

If the gun manufacturer is manufacturing that type of weapon, is BEING ALLOWED to market it and legally sell it to the public, where is the so called limitation as to what can be or can’t be legally procured by a normal schmo who has the legal means and permits to purchase/own it? I mean there can’t be a one-way street.

People can’t say “let’s limit or eliminate military grade weapons” if the gun manufacturers continue to make and sell - AND people have the LEGAL means to purchase not only that type of gun but the associated ammo and accessories for it.

Why not stop the manufacturing of said gun completely IF certain regions are banning it? Because it all goes back to MONEY.... money makes the world go round...


Shall we delve into the facts of Governments supplying other factions with guns to reduce terrorism or other enemy factions within their countries? Do you think these Govts are asking those “tribes” or groups of people to go through rigorous background checks before they unload and uncrate boxes and boxes of automatic weapons for them to PROTECT themselves from their enemies? How do you propose stopping THAT?

And your last paragraph is the point I made previously: Correct - people who had legally obtained firearms and passed their State criminal and health backgrounds are those same people in the local and world news committing heinous firearms related crimes.

While a proposed firearms buyback is brilliant (and costly) to reduce the pool of guns in any given country for an attempt to reduce crime or deaths - what’s to stop the knife attacks, car/truck/bus attacks, baseball bat attacks, brick throwers, stone throwers and..... and..... you get the point.

Who, outside of any Military, needs a rocket propelled grenade launcher? No one, but people have them....

All I’m saying is while the argument to curtail gun violence is a valid one - more checks and balances still will NOT stop heinous firearms crimes committed by those who had legally passed all such stop gaps.

 

[Grintch]

Cool.

Can we agree on this? Guns are designed to kill. They are not designed to protect. Shields are designed to protect. Armour protects. Kevlar protects. Guns kill.

So for those who suggest they bought their gun for protection, lets just forget the bullshit 'cos you didn't buy it for that reason. You bought it because you can. If someone knocks on your door with a Glock in their waistband, you and your family are dead and the twelve AR15's you have for protection will be pawned off by your next of kin.

This is why less guns means less gun deaths. It's why NZ are reducing the number of guns available, and it's why Australia did. Yeah, the bad guys will have guns but as a rule they tend to shoot other bad guys. Removing guns from the good guys prevents many suicides, prevents five year olds accidentally shooting their sisters, prevents angry husbands killing their missus because her phone has a dick pic on it, and reduces the pool of guns that can be stolen and used by bad guys.

Ask yourselves this question. Of all the big mass shootings you've had in recent years, how many were done by "bad guys"? Columbine, Sandy Hook, Vegas, Pulse.....none of the shooters had a felony criminal record. They were all "good guys" with access to guns.

Too bad the facts say different. The US with by far the most guns has a below average murder rate.

Using this theory the purpose of the police is to murder us all, because they have guns. Not "Protect and serve" but "Murder and kill". Very often the same guns that are banned (machine guns) or people want to ban (semi automatic "assault weapons"). And if the armed police are all murderers, well you would have to be an idiot to give up your guns.

Quit getting your gun facts from video games and movies. Go shoot a gun (at a target, not a person) . Kind of fun isn't it. Shoot it as fast as you can, notice how shooting faster just results in a lot of misses? Put it down. Watch it. It will not jump up by itself and kill anyone, no matter how long you watch. If guns killed people we would all be dead. Because there are now more guns in the US than people. Yet cars consistently kill more people. Are you going to give up your "assault weapon" Mustang. Who needs a gun is very like who needs a fast car.

Compare the gun ownership rate verses the crime rate? Crime rate has been going down since 1992, despite most states adopting more lenient concealed carry licencing policies starting in 1987, and sales of semi-auto rifles and pistols exploding during the Obama administration. Army veteran, with 10,000+ rounds fired. Nobody dead yet.

 

[LSchicago]

I live in IL, a democratic area. I can assure you most of us do not want the second amendment going it away, and it won't regardless of who is in office. I own a store, and I'm armed. Lots of my customers conceal carry. Guns should be legal as well as a woman's choice.

 

[Interceptor]

The American Revolution was partly about the British taking guns.
This why we have a 2nd amendment

 

[Docscurlock]

The American Revolution was partly about the British taking guns.
This why we have a 2nd amendment

The shot heard round the world.
The Revolution Begins
The clash began on April 19, 1775 when more about 700 British soldiers were given what they thought were secret orders to destroy colonial military supplies in Concord, Massachusetts. Fortunately, thanks to a rather elaborate colonial intelligence network, led by the Sons of Liberty, the Patriots were aware that their supplies were at risk, and were able to move them to different locations long before the British began to move. Also, thanks to the daring rides of a few brave men, the colonial militia knew that an engagement with the British Army was imminent.

Gun confiscation here could potentially start another revolution. Much bloodier this time. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and realize taking American's guns away would be foolish.

Sponsored