This American father is redefining what it means to be a 'responsible gun owner'

[JohnR! 5,495]

Deriving a different opinion would have required interest in learning about history, and I don't think that is the case with any of those who espouse such opinions. They'd be hard pressed to find Germany in the map of Europe, which would prevent them from understanding the geopolitics involved. They only understand the concept of one action = one reaction. Anything beyond that is pure left wing propaganda.

Those opinions are prevalent though - like birtherism, that Benghazi nonsense or the president being in league with Al Qaeda..

I believe that a lot of people have stereotyped views of the holocaust and genuinely think that a complex series of events can be reduced down to "Germans killed the Jews, because the Jews had no guns and couldn't fight back". The Jews in fact did fight back.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Background checks wouldn't stop you from getting another gun. They wouldn't stop a criminal either, but in the long run, it would make it a degree harder. You already know that but you choose to repeat dogma instead. I don't see the point.

All someone needs to do is call up their friend in mexico or where ever they get their drugs from . ... The guns are here along with their drugs. Criminals won't go through back ground checks. The only thing you desire is make it harder for the law abiding citizen to own a gun . You really desire a total ban on all guns. That pesky 2nd gets in the way

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The 2nd isn't a right worth having imo. But that's a separate issue.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Oh sure. I just think it's interesting that there are gun enthusiasts with different opinions who don't want to be associated with those views, even to the extent that they are prepared to get rid of their own guns. Yet as we've seen in this thread - few if any of this man's peers on here appear willing to entertain his opinion, even if they happen to disagree with it. Instead he's got be characterised as some sort of traitor.

Dogma exists to fill that void where thought and reason once existed. The gun lobby does dogma as well as anyone. Reason doesn't work in places where reason doesn't exist.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Dakine10

[JohnR! 5,495]

Alas, dogma can only exist when reason isn't present. One anathema to the other.

Dogma exists to fill that void where thought and reason once existed. The gun lobby does dogma as well as anyone. Reason doesn't work in places where reason doesn't exist.

[Sousuke 1,214]

He is looking for media attention. He talks about his gun like its sentient which is not in anyway logical. I'm sorry but I can't take this man or the article seriously.

[Dakine10 5,452]

All someone needs to do is call up their friend in mexico or where ever they get their drugs from . ... The guns are here along with their drugs. Criminals won't go through back ground checks. The only thing you desire is make it harder for the law abiding citizen to own a gun . You really desire a total ban on all guns. That pesky 2nd gets in the way

Not all criminals have buddies in Mexico. That is an flawed thought process at work from the start. It wouldn't stop all criminals. It would stop some. It would make it harder for others.

I've had a background check done. It's not that big of a deal. Didn't hurt. Seemed like an otherwise normal day. Life went on.

What issue do you have with background checks? Why would it stop you from getting a gun? There are only 2 possibilities. I don't think you are a criminal. Is it the other reason?

[JohnR! 5,495]

Not all criminals have buddies in Mexico. That is an flawed thought process at work from the start. It wouldn't stop all criminals. It would stop some. It would make it harder for others.

I've had a background check done. It's not that big of a deal. Didn't hurt. Seemed like an otherwise normal day. Life went on.

What issue do you have with background checks? Why would it stop you from getting a gun? There are only 2 possibilities. I don't think you are a criminal. Is it the other reason?

That was probably a reference to the Chinese mafia operating in Latin America.

http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/rising-dragon-the-chinese-mafia-threat-in-latin-america

Chinese mafia operations in Latin America are little understood, but a recent report on these groups in Argentina illustrates how they make their presence felt via extortion, human smuggling rings, and the occasional murder. As China deepens its economic relationship with Latin America, it's possible these mafias may become ever more prominent.

Authorities in Argentina have attributed 31 murders over the last five years, and four in 2014 alone, to seven Chinese mafias operating in the country, reported La Nacion. These mafias reportedly earn revenue by extorting businesses within the Chinese community, and resort to violence when owners do not comply with their demands.

In at least three of the 2014 cases, the victim did not appear to have been robbed, leading authorities to believe they were killed after running afoul of criminal groups in the Chinese community. According to La Nacion, the Chinese mafias (also known throughout Latin America under the umbrella term Red Dragon) often hire Argentine nationals to commit the murders.

The most recent Chinese victim -- who was shot and killed in Buenos Aires in August -- was found carrying a large sum of US and Argentine currency at the time of his death, and was under investigation by police for human trafficking.

Red Dragon Touts Diverse Criminal Portfolio

As exemplified in Argentina, extortion is one of the most common sources of revenue for Chinese mafias in Latin America. In one typical strategy, mafias will send Chinese business owners letters in their native dialect, demanding money in return for "protection" services. A 2011 investigation in San Martin, Argentina, revealed that one Chinese criminal group required local owners who had paid a protection fee of $50,000 to hang a drawing of a Chinese dragon over their door as a sign that they had paid their dues.

Chinese mafia activity in Latin America isn't limited to the extortion of businesses. These small-scale extortion operations are generally run by loosely affiliated groups, while larger gangs run more complex illicit enterprises such as human smuggling rings, which can bring in much higher profits.

Human smuggling is an especially lucrative business for Chinese mafias in Argentina and beyond, as Latin America is an important transit point for Chinese nationals seeking to enter the United States without visas. Chinese mafias reportedly charge up to $60,000 per person and can potentially earn as much as $750 million per year bringing Chinese immigrants to countries along Latin America's Pacific coast, including Ecuador, Colombia, and Peru. Once in Latin America, many Chinese continue their journey north using overland routes, traveling through Central America and Mexico before entering the United States.

[Dakine10 5,452]

That was probably a reference to the Chinese mafia operating in Latin America.

Perhaps it was, but I think it was something else.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

All someone needs to do is call up their friend in mexico or where ever they get their drugs from . ... The guns are here along with their drugs. Criminals won't go through back ground checks. The only thing you desire is make it harder for the law abiding citizen to own a gun . You really desire a total ban on all guns. That pesky 2nd gets in the way

Can you please show me where Dankine, Trump, or anyone for that matter has talked about banning guns? Looks like Dakine might be a gun owner as well. You do this with anyone who tries to have a logical debate about guns. It's really sad and pathetic that here in our own country, we cherish guns more that we value human life. Someone in another thread actually said that owning a gun is what being an American is about. Something is really wrong with that...

I'm really starting to believe Venkman has a point. If you can't grasp the simple concept of wanting less gun deaths doesn't equate banning all guns, why should you be allowed to carry?

[TBoneTX 46,261]

[Moderator hat on]

A TOS-violating post has been removed, along with a quote of it. Draconian administrative action has been applied.

[Moderator hat off]

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Can you please show me where Dankine, Trump, or anyone for that matter has talked about banning guns? Looks like Dakine might be a gun owner as well. You do this with anyone who tries to have a logical debate about guns. It's really sad and pathetic that here in our own country, we cherish guns more that we value human life. Someone in another thread actually said that owning a gun is what being an American is about. Something is really wrong with that...

I'm really starting to believe Venkman has a point. If you can't grasp the simple concept of wanting less gun deaths doesn't equate banning all guns, why should you be allowed to carry?

You are taking quite a bit of latitude here, assuming (and putting words into his keyboard) that he doesn't want less gun deaths. Can you post a comment where he said this? If not, perhaps you should ask the mods to delete your post. Because I haven't gotten this idea from reading any of his posts, at all. Perhaps it's simply "artistic license" on your part. But you sure do seem to have an axe to grind with Lost.

Most people who are pro-gun support more thorough background checks, or other methods making it harder for the wrong folks to obtain guns, from what I have seen on several forums, especially gun forums. The trouble is, as Lost tried to point out above, is that only law-abiding citizens (read: those who are NOT the ones responsible for gun deaths or mass homicides) will be affected by said more thorough screenings. Criminals will always have access to guns outside the bounds of us "normal" citizenry.

[Boiler 46,232]

For the record I am a responsible Hillman Hunter owner.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

You are taking quite a bit of latitude here, assuming (and putting words into his keyboard) that he doesn't want less gun deaths. Can you post a comment where he said this? If not, perhaps you should ask the mods to delete your post. Because I haven't gotten this idea from reading any of his posts, at all. Perhaps it's simply "artistic license" on your part. But you sure do seem to have an axe to grind with Lost.

Most people who are pro-gun support more thorough background checks, or other methods making it harder for the wrong folks to obtain guns, from what I have seen on several forums, especially gun forums. The trouble is, as Lost tried to point out above, is that only law-abiding citizens (read: those who are NOT the ones responsible for gun deaths or mass homicides) will be affected by said more thorough screenings. Criminals will always have access to guns outside the bounds of us "normal" citizenry.

Actually I'm not. Here are some of his quotes:

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=145&t=570521&qpid=7853853

The trouble with gun control is this Marvin .It actively degrades defensive capabilities of non-violent people..You view a view a peaceful person with a pistol as a bigger problem than a violent person with say a knife

French train terror attack hero Spencer Stone "repeatedly stabbed" in chest 'while protecting friend'

http://www.mirror.co...ews/world-news/

Gun control makes people helpless, fearful and dependent on the authorities who promise safety but cannot deliver it... public colleges and universities do not have a general legal obligation to protect adult students from violent acts by other students. The police show up to write the report

The only thing you do in banning guns is eliminating the ability to protect self and family from a human predator ...such as the Virginia polytechnic shooting .. Ever read that account from the surviving students.. Chilling That fellow left and came back to make sure folks were dead. .. No one was there to protect them even from the second assault.

And in this thread:

The only thing you desire is make it harder for the law abiding citizen to own a gun . You really desire a total ban on all guns. That pesky 2nd gets in the way

And that's just this week, if you go digging back a bit further you'll find more of this rhetoric.

As I've said before, no one has said anything about banning guns, but it's the first thing Lost brings up whenever the subject is broached. That's why I point it out, it's this type of insanity that hampers the gun debate. And for the record, most mass shootings are done by law biding citizens. The VA tech shooter wasn't a criminal. Adam Lanza was a law biding citizen before he went on his rampage.

And why would it make it harder for you to get a gun? If you don't have a mental condition or a criminal record, you'll be fine. As it's been said here time and time again, if you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of? I would love for psyche evaluations to be part of the condition to obtain a firearm. I wonder how many people wouldn't make muster.

[Boiler 46,232]

If nobody is interested in banning guns then what is the point of all these threads?