# Solution to gun control debate



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

CNN reported that another goofball walked in to an airport with an assault rifle and started shooting. Before he could kill anyone an agent with a gun challenged him and fired, probably killing him. This one won't get a ton of press coverage but you fight fire with fire. Pure and simple.

Man shot and killed at Houston's Bush Intercontinental Airport - CNN.com


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

Maybe a "good guy with a gun can prevent a bad guy with a gun from doing a lot of killing"


----------



## Montana Rancher (Mar 4, 2013)

An armed society is a polite society

The Polite Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Personally, I think we need to borrow a play from the liberal playbook and just change the vocabulary.

Cordless drill:









Remote cordless drill:


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

This illustration needs to be used politics as well. By this I mean we need to fight back the same way the left does. The left wants to incrementally dismantle gun ownership. They don't care if it takes a 100 years or 200 years they will wear the "gun culture" down and turn it into a bunch of racist, homophobic, extremist. The pro gun community needs to fight back politically. They need to make it easier to own a gun, cheaper to own a gun, and expand the gun culture - tit for tat - every time the left tries to restrict the pro gun community needs to try and expand. Otherwise this perpetual defense will lead to defeat. Even the grand canyon lost after 10,000 or so years - they will keep dripping water on the pro gun culture until its defeated.


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

There is a war against guns. Thats why we need to be just as determined as the anti-gun people. The OP is correct, when a gun is used to prevent a crime, it don't get much air time.


----------



## retired guard (Mar 7, 2013)

Moonshinedave said:


> There is a war against guns. Thats why we need to be just as determined as the anti-gun people. The OP is correct, when a gun is used to prevent a crime, it don't get much air time.


A case in point how many heard in the mainstream media about a CCW holder stopping a knife wielding lunatic who was on a rampage at Smiths store in Utah?


----------



## GTGallop (Nov 11, 2012)

Wait?!? That's impossible. I use to live in Houston and I flew in and out of that airport hundreds of times. He couldn't possibly have gone in there with a weapon. It the sign on the door clearly reads "NO WEAPONS ALLOWED." How could he have possibly gotten a weapon past such an authoritative and imposing sign? I mean that's got to be some sort of impossible feat? Right?


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

paraquack said:


> Maybe a "good guy with a gun can prevent a bad guy with a gun from doing a lot of killing"


Yay, Shane had a healthy attitude to guns- _"A gun is a tool, no better or worse than the man using it"_


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Amen!


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

Suggestion Block:

The anti's say, and continue to say, that 90% of America supports a universal back ground check. They can even doctor up some generic polls right after Newtown's devastating shooting to prove it. This is where I think the NRA had a unique opportunity to shove it in their faces. The solution would have proably cost about $10k based on some other research I have done on other projects. That $10k would be the development of a smart phone application and web site (combination) which accesses a simple database. There would be a nominal cost to use the free application - probably $3 whole dollars all done digitally. Enter the persons name, address, and social security and the application or web site would check its database to see if the person exists. If it says "NO" the person does not exist they can legally own a gun - they are not on the list. At which point the person checked could offer to pony up $3.00 of his / her own and add their name to "another" list if desired - purely voluntary. If when doing the original $3.00 check and the answer is "NO" and the person comes up on the second voluntary list it just means they've already been checked out and already own a gun - so there is no wait for them - no mandatory waiting period. 

Use of the smart phone / web site application would be voluntary. It would however facilitate the immediate sell of a firearm WITHOUT a dealer. If the person voluntarily adds themselves to the second list they don't have to wait either. Imagine what that would do for those of us in unconstitutional states like CA where the gun show is effectively dead because you can't buy anything there and take it home! 

Now it would be "up to" our dear governments, federal, state, local, to make sure those who can't buy guns in America (felons, mentally ill, etc) are added to list A. List "A" would be checked agaisnt list "B" the voluntary one every day and if a person is found on list "B" as owning a gun but should not they'd be removed from list "B" and authorities notified. The NRA would promote its "app" and "web site" back ground check as the simple, easy and voluntary system it should be. I personally sell many guns, buy more, and hate the waiting period. I also don't want to sell a gun to a lunatic ready to go out and kill people or a felon wanting to rob or murder. I'd gladly pay $3 to add my name to a second list so I could not have to wait when I buy, but I know my brother would not want to be on any such list - he wouldn't. Its voluntary but he might have to wait if the local / state govt so mandates. 

"BUT THIS IS A BACKGROUND CHECK" I hear the libertarian cry? Yes, but its voluntary, its simple, and its affordable. It eliminates archiac NCIS checks and a variety of other failures in big government to manage simple databases. Of course there MUST be procedures for adding people to the lists, and getting one's name off if wrongfully added. While important its also minutia. The anti's lose the battle here. They wanted back ground checks but what they really wanted was to make gun ownership MORE DIFFICULT and what this would do is actually make it EASIER for those of us in unconstitutional states anyway. It would head off unconstitutional acts by a federal government likely to impact free states as well.


----------



## ElPasoLoneWolf (May 5, 2013)

Thats a good idea but it would not have stopped Sandy or Newton, that is what I point out to liberats everyday in my town (not a shot at you). The administration uses those two examples to push their agenda yet their proposed solution would not fix the REAL problems, they want us to think a lack of back round checks is the problem but that is not the case and criminals don't abide by the law as it is, the problems are Hollywood, prescription drugs and the family unit the liberals are so adamant about destroying. They want to push a bill that sounds like common sense to get the sheeple behind it but the real goal hidden within that bill is to implement a registration process and we all know what happens after that. Hollywood supports the liberals so they wont go after them, the media does the same and you cant watch ABC, CBS, NBC etc without some bull$hit commercial advertising the latest drug to fix some "disorder" you supposedly have which also brings along side effects worse than the "disorder". Don't think I even need to make examples of how the libtards are out to destroy the family unit. An armed society is a polite society, I agree completely and more guns are indeed the solution, we can't go out and cull the herd of irresponsible or crazy people but we can be prepared to immediately address them when they show their ugly mug.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

I don't know where they are getting their 90% from. Here is a poll from PBS. Not only should you check this out, you should vote also.

Congressional action on guns | Need to Know | PBS


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

Incidentally there are lots of videos around showing US storekeepers trying to fight off armed robbers with a baseball bat or their fists, and I wonder why the heck they don't simply keep a gun under the counter ready to pull and start blasting.


----------



## punch (Nov 6, 2012)

inceptor said:


> I don't know where they are getting their 90% from. Here is a poll from PBS. Not only should you check this out, you should vote also.
> 
> Congressional action on guns | Need to Know | PBS


Thanks for posting that poll inceptor! I was wondering where that 90% figure came from. And PBS is about as liberal as you can get.
Heck, I voted. Corruption in goverment and the media is a lot like being a little pregnant. I mean you either are or you ain't. 
Look at any country that bought into gun control, their taxes, crime rate, quality of life and ask yourself if you want to live that life.

I'm jus sayin...

punch


----------



## retired guard (Mar 7, 2013)

inceptor said:


> I don't know where they are getting their 90% from. Here is a poll from PBS. Not only should you check this out, you should vote also.
> 
> Congressional action on guns | Need to Know | PBS


Apparently this was a Washington Post poll results preconfigured by small sample size (approx one thousand) and location of sample size (Manhatten).


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

The poll used to generate the 90% figure originated the weekend after the horrible tragedy in Newtown. I don't even know if they've redone it. There are some pointing to high 80's recently though - but again the question is a "generic" check and people don't know the details - that it forces people to dealers - that it costs significant amounts of money - that it requires time to 'wait" and it does nothing to advance the ownership of firearms among law abiding people. 

ElPaso you are correct in that my proposal nor the one which was rejected by the senate would have stopped Newtown - no doubt. My point was not to try and stop that, but to use the "anti's" argument against them to enhance gun ownership, enhance the rights in the many states where they have been trampled and show the "undecideds" out there the gun community has solutions to what that "90%" say they want.


----------



## GTGallop (Nov 11, 2012)

inceptor said:


> I don't know where they are getting their 90% from. Here is a poll from PBS. Not only should you check this out, you should vote also.
> 
> Congressional action on guns | Need to Know | PBS


A lot of it has to with when (after Sandy Hook) and how they ask the survey questions. You can most certainly "lead" a participant to an answer by asking a totally different question about the same topic.

Example:
FACT BASED OBJECTIVE QUESTION - Currently all federally licensed firearms dealers must complete a NICS Background Check for every transaction they conduct. This includes transactions in their store, at gun shows, and when there is an FFL transfer of a firearm purchased online. Would you support expanding that requirement to private citizens selling firearms or when a firearm is inherited?

LEADING QUESTION - Adam Lanza, a mentally disturbed individual who could not legally posses a firearm, killed 30+ students in a school with a firearm he obtained with out a background check. Do you support individuals like Adam Lanza having to pass a background check before purchasing a firearm?

I could get you 90% "YES" with the second question.


----------



## punch (Nov 6, 2012)

If you look at the results of the PBS poll it reflects the 90+ percent is for no further background checks.
Still if you are an idiot and want to hurt people no background check will prevent one from finding a weapon
of some sort.


----------



## Montana Rancher (Mar 4, 2013)

If you want to solve the mass shooting problems, outlaw gun free zones.


----------

