How bout these loser Dems with a 25-hour sit-in?

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Congressional Democrats ended their 25-hour sit-in on the House floor this afternoon, failing to force a vote on two pieces of gun legislation. The controversial sit-in included 26 Democratic lawmakers who themselves own guns, Heat Street learned after examining 2013 USA Today data on congressional firearms ownership. The participants also included 12 more Democrats in Congress who either didn’t respond to USA Today’s gun survey or declined to say whether or not they possessed a firearm.

 

http://heatst.com/politics/26-of-the-democrats-who-participated-in-the-gun-control-sit-in-own-guns/

[BwareDWare94 723]

Man, some of you guys are ridiculous. Asking for basic regulations is not going to threaten whether or not you can own a firearm. It's time to take off the tin foil hats and start acknowledging that there is something we can do about gun violence, all the way from murders on down to suicides. All of these gun deaths are not necessary, and our unwillingness as a whole to view it as a real problem is downright embarrassing.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Was reading heat street for the first time yesterday for something else entirely, (related to Zoe Quinn freaking out that the five fun guys reference in the new Paper Mario was somehow a shot at her alleged sleeping around to sell her games, instead of, ya know, five fun guys = five fungis). Really liking it so far.

 

That said, the Dems argument during this sit-in was never to remove firearms from everyone, so I don't really see what relevance the fact that some of them own guns themselves has.

 

It is based in reality. You're not going to defend from every break-in. Some people are going to be armed. Some people are going to catch you while you sleep. But the odds of you stopping a break-in are much higher when you have a weapon than when you don't. I used to be large in the anti-gun crowd because of the idea that the gun takes too long to get to. There are some instances where it is true that you won't be able to defend yourself, yes. A criminal with a firearm busts into your bedroom at 4 AM and you're way less likely to protect yourself. But if you have your gun on your hip watching TV at 9 at night and some unarmed or poorly armed criminal tries to bust in, you're going to have a means of defending yourself or at least scaring them off.

If I live alone why should I be stopped from owning a gun? Wouldn't harm a family member. If someone breaks in it's just me vs them right? As a homeowner I should have every right to defend my property. Even goes for couples without kids. Let's say I have a girlfriend who lives with me and I'm out of town when someone breaks in. How is she going to defend herself from a man who is probably twice as strong? The only concern is for families with kids having poor firearm containment and the kid getting ahold of the gun and shooting it.

 

No one is suggesting that we remove guns from homeowners entirely. I am merely pointing out that your argument is not factually based. In reality, if you own a gun, and a situation happens where that gun is fired at someone, it is far more likely that is fired at someone you know or at you than at some robber. The odds of that happening are very low compared to the odds of a kid getting ahold of it, or a family member during a heated argument, etc. This is not an argument against owning guns either. Stupid people will be stupid. I'm just pointing out the idea that owning a gun makes you more safe is factually incorrect. There are certain situations where that will be the case, but overall it is false.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Thanatos

[Cherry 1,302]

The issue with taking away these weapons is that they do little to actually stop gun violence. They criminalize recreational gun ownership. There are millions of semi-automatic rifles in circulation right now that would become illegal to own under new legislation that bans "assault rifles". Would a buy-back program work? Partially. But there would still be people who want to keep their weapon and get jailed if they're ever found to still have it. You also have to consider that very few fatal shootings are caused by semi-automatic rifles and that 99.99% or more are never used to kill someone. Also could use the argument of there always being a black market for firearms, and that people could just buy semi-automatic rifles illegally, but I won't even go there.

 

If you want to promote better background checks and smarter sales just give significant tax reductions to companies that do an extensive background check and keep tabs on all sales.

 

That comes down to responsible gun ownership Than. If someone else is not capable of handling a gun responsibly it doesn't mean everyone should have their guns taken away.

Edited June 26, 2016 by Chernobyl426

[Thanatos 2,847]

I can't really argue with you if you say things like, "taking away these guns would do little to stop gun violence." That's just a flat out lie, sheer NRA propaganda. There's no room or point to debate when you ignore facts.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Thanatos

[Cherry 1,302]

If you take away a firearm that doesn't get used in 99.99% of gun crimes it won't reduce gun crime by more than a speck. It's not NRA propaganda lmao. Most gun crime is committed with handguns or non-military style semi-auto rifles. Show me the facts that more than .01% of firearm deaths are caused by military style semi-automatic rifles.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Chernobyl426