Who the hell are these "most sensible people" and who is deciding that they are "sensible" in the first place? Diane Feinstein?
I don't imagine that you have ever tried to legally purchase a gun, but these conditions already exist. "Assault rifles" or "machine guns" are already illegal. (An AR-15 is not an "assault rifle" as it fires one round per trigger press.) A felon cannot legally purchase a firearm and it is illegal to sell any firearm to a felon. Handguns are not "traded freely or easy to attain" unless you either purchase one legally and are subject to a background check, or purchase one illegally, which is illegal.
Yes, there are many guns on the streets in our cities. Many of those are in the hands of felons and mentally unstable people. The problem is that these people are already in violation of current gun-ownership laws. What makes you think that "tighter background checks" (which these people fail the ones already in place) or an "assault weapons ban" (which already exists) is suddenly going to make these people realize that they're on the wrong side of the law? Do you honestly believe that these new laws will uproot the black market and turn violent, gun-toting criminals into upstanding citizens?
You talk a lot, but don't really listen. Read the following carefully so that you know what you are arguing against:
The most sensible people are advocating for tighter background checks, and a ban of assault rifles (with handguns limited to those with squeaky clean backgrounds). Shotguns and other hunting rifles can be attained with a clean background check. So, if you are not a felon... you can purchase one of these- although I would prefer some basic training course before allowing some idiot the opportunity to stare down his barrel to see if anything fell down it while he's got his thumb on the trigger.
When you saturate your society with countless handguns that are traded freely, easy to attain, and bullets a dime a dozen... there's no reason to not understand the need to change current practices.
When psychopathic idiots are allowed to purchase assault rifles... there's no reason to not understand the need to change current practices.
30 Bills is suggesting so. He might be fevered, but it is his opinion when offering such a piece. If you read back through some of the more detailed threads- such as the Newtown one- any unbiased person weighing the arguments offered can safely say the side that argued for gun reform did so convincingly. It was a thundering actually.
Your version of an 'assault rifle' and mine might differ. Have a look at this guy use his AR-15 and tell me how effective this style would be shooting kindergarten kids in a classroom or people in a theater? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD213VW6WjY
On this note... where do you think your next expression of rage is going to be? It likely won't be long, eh? Geez man. Why do citizens need such weaponry? There is no need for your neighbours to be in possession of such a weapon. If someone wants self-defence... a shotgun is more than adequate.
Yes, there are many guns on the streets in our cities. So... why add more? Get rid of handguns to anyone who simply wants one- the background checks have been posted on here for various states and they are a joke. As for the assault rifles... well... what can anyone really say? I know they are pretty cool and I wouldn't mind having one myself to shoot beer cans with, but I can live without it knowing the kids in my country are much safer without them. Our huge border has likely seen a few AR-15s introduced to our society, but they have not been problematic given anyone cannot just go to the local sporting goods and buy one- let alone buy ammunition.
People that can't buy a gun in their own state because of strict gun laws go to another state to illegally purchase guns that they aren't allowed to have, bring them to their home-state and commit acts that are illegal with those illegal guns.
The guy in the state that is selling the guns illegally isn't supposed to be selling them in the first place, especially to people that aren't residents of that state and are know to be felons.
Both the buyers of these guns and the sellers know that they are breaking the law.
When they are caught, current legislation is sufficient to send the guilty parties to prison.
If I understand that correctly, is there anything short of an outright ban on individual gun ownership and subsequent confiscation that that will change any of this?
you don't have this correctly. as it stands now, here in Ohio it doesn't seem to matter if you have been denied in your home state or not. It is not illegal to be a nonresident of this state and purchase a weapon in this state.
My governor and the GOP controlled house with do nothing to change this. IN FACT they have expanded the reciprocity of concealed carry with more states.
The response to the emails I have sent to my GOP senator and my governor both state that tragedies like Newtown and in Ohio ,Chardon wouldn't be prevented.
Ok, maybe not, BUT what of the other people dying on a daily basis due to the proliferation of guns on our streets.
There simply must be an easy way to trace a purchase of the weapons sold in any venue in this state. Further I believe that if an owner has not secured their weapons in such a manner to reasonably guard against theft, then they should be help criminally liable if their mis-stored weapons get stolen and are used in a crime later. And while it may rub salt in the wounds of a parent who's child has gotten their guns and killed a sibling or someone else, they too should face charges related to that death.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
People that can't buy a gun in their own state because of strict gun laws go to another state to illegally purchase guns that they aren't allowed to have, bring them to their home-state and commit acts that are illegal with those illegal guns.
The guy in the state that is selling the guns illegally isn't supposed to be selling them in the first place, especially to people that aren't residents of that state and are know to be felons.
Both the buyers of these guns and the sellers know that they are breaking the law.
When they are caught, current legislation is sufficient to send the guilty parties to prison.
If I understand that correctly, is there anything short of an outright ban on individual gun ownership and subsequent confiscation that that will change any of this?
you don't have this correctly. as it stands now, here in Ohio it doesn't seem to matter if you have been denied in your home state or not. It is not illegal to be a nonresident of this state and purchase a weapon in this state.
My governor and the GOP controlled house with do nothing to change this. IN FACT they have expanded the reciprocity of concealed carry with more states.
The response to the emails I have sent to my GOP senator and my governor both state that tragedies like Newtown and in Ohio ,Chardon wouldn't be prevented.
Ok, maybe not, BUT what of the other people dying on a daily basis due to the proliferation of guns on our streets.
Further I believe that if an owner has not secured their weapons in such a manner to reasonably guard against theft, then they should be help criminally liable if their mis-stored weapons get stolen and are used in a crime later. And while it may rub salt in the wounds of a parent who's child has gotten their guns and killed a sibling or someone else, they too should face charges related to that death.
Is someone fails a background check, it is illegal for them to buy a gun anywhere in the US. The system is called NICS and stands for National Instant Criminal Background check system.
You can't get a legal concealed-carry permit in most states without passing background checks, completing a firearms safety exam and displaying safe gun-handling/proficiency to a certified instructor. Also, one must be a resident in the state where the license is issued, preventing out-of-state loopholes. (All of this is changing very quickly, so this may not be the case for long.)
The people dying because of guns are dying at the hands of criminals who don't care about the laws. Gun laws, by definition will not apply to criminals, will only affect law-abiding citizens and do not act as a deterrent against violent crime.
I totally agree with everything in the last paragraph. However, the "easy way to trace" is dangerously close to a gun registry program which I feel is a slippery slope and should be avoided if possible.
Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are a necessary part of our country's checks and balances system, like it or not. Guns in the hands of criminals are, obviously, very bad for everyone.
I would love to live in a world where people always looked after one another, never victimized each other and lived in peace and harmony with all living things. However, we are not there.
The police and/or government are not responsible for protecting us from the other, violent human beings, only solving the crime after the fact. I subscribe to the philosophy that I am responsible for the protection and survival of my family and myself.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
Who the hell are these "most sensible people" and who is deciding that they are "sensible" in the first place? Diane Feinstein?
I don't imagine that you have ever tried to legally purchase a gun, but these conditions already exist. "Assault rifles" or "machine guns" are already illegal. (An AR-15 is not an "assault rifle" as it fires one round per trigger press.) A felon cannot legally purchase a firearm and it is illegal to sell any firearm to a felon. Handguns are not "traded freely or easy to attain" unless you either purchase one legally and are subject to a background check, or purchase one illegally, which is illegal.
Yes, there are many guns on the streets in our cities. Many of those are in the hands of felons and mentally unstable people. The problem is that these people are already in violation of current gun-ownership laws. What makes you think that "tighter background checks" (which these people fail the ones already in place) or an "assault weapons ban" (which already exists) is suddenly going to make these people realize that they're on the wrong side of the law? Do you honestly believe that these new laws will uproot the black market and turn violent, gun-toting criminals into upstanding citizens?
People that can't buy a gun in their own state because of strict gun laws go to another state to illegally purchase guns that they aren't allowed to have, bring them to their home-state and commit acts that are illegal with those illegal guns.
The guy in the state that is selling the guns illegally isn't supposed to be selling them in the first place, especially to people that aren't residents of that state and are know to be felons.
Both the buyers of these guns and the sellers know that they are breaking the law.
When they are caught, current legislation is sufficient to send the guilty parties to prison.
If I understand that correctly, is there anything short of an outright ban on individual gun ownership and subsequent confiscation that that will change any of this?
You talk a lot, but don't really listen. Read the following carefully so that you know what you are arguing against:
The most sensible people are advocating for tighter background checks, and a ban of assault rifles (with handguns limited to those with squeaky clean backgrounds). Shotguns and other hunting rifles can be attained with a clean background check. So, if you are not a felon... you can purchase one of these- although I would prefer some basic training course before allowing some idiot the opportunity to stare down his barrel to see if anything fell down it while he's got his thumb on the trigger.
When you saturate your society with countless handguns that are traded freely, easy to attain, and bullets a dime a dozen... there's no reason to not understand the need to change current practices.
When psychopathic idiots are allowed to purchase assault rifles... there's no reason to not understand the need to change current practices.
The people dying because of guns are dying at the hands of criminals who don't care about the laws. Gun laws, by definition will not apply to criminals, will only affect law-abiding citizens and do not act as a deterrent against violent crime.
Dont forget about the thousands and thousands of accidents (mostly involving KIDS). I just saw another story about a 5 year old who shot herself in the head and died. They're in the news in my area ever week/month or so... Personally, I think more stringent laws will also deter some of the lazy, irresponsible idiots who ARE law abiding, but just too stupid to lock their guns up around the kids.
We all have our opinions.. I think stricter laws could help in some ways. In fact, I read that Adam Lanza went to buy a gun and decided not to because of the waiting period. Then he decided it was easier to steal his mom's guns.
Some guy was trying to rob people waiting in line by by Lebron's new shoe in Atlanta and a guy with a concealed permit wasted him. And then got back in line.
Politics aside, it does not speak well of a community where someone shoots someone dead and then gets back in line to buy a pair of shoes.
i'd have to agree with stronger penalties for accidents. it seems as if right now the loss of your child is punishment enough, which I think leads to carelessness. if people could actually get in trouble for being irresponsible like that, it might change their attitude about unsecure guns. as far as adam lanza goes, what's the old saying? where there's a will there's a way.
The people dying because of guns are dying at the hands of criminals who don't care about the laws. Gun laws, by definition will not apply to criminals, will only affect law-abiding citizens and do not act as a deterrent against violent crime.
Dont forget about the thousands and thousands of accidents (mostly involving KIDS). I just saw another story about a 5 year old who shot herself in the head and died. They're in the news in my area ever week/month or so... Personally, I think more stringent laws will also deter some of the lazy, irresponsible idiots who ARE law abiding, but just too stupid to lock their guns up around the kids.
We all have our opinions.. I think stricter laws could help in some ways. In fact, I read that Adam Lanza went to buy a gun and decided not to because of the waiting period. Then he decided it was easier to steal his mom's guns.
if you think what I believe is stupid, bizarre, ridiculous or outrageous.....it's ok, I think I had a brain tumor when I wrote that.
i'd have to agree with stronger penalties for accidents. it seems as if right now the loss of your child is punishment enough, which I think leads to carelessness. if people could actually get in trouble for being irresponsible like that, it might change their attitude about unsecure guns. as far as adam lanza goes, what's the old saying? where there's a will there's a way.
The people dying because of guns are dying at the hands of criminals who don't care about the laws. Gun laws, by definition will not apply to criminals, will only affect law-abiding citizens and do not act as a deterrent against violent crime.
Dont forget about the thousands and thousands of accidents (mostly involving KIDS). I just saw another story about a 5 year old who shot herself in the head and died. They're in the news in my area ever week/month or so... Personally, I think more stringent laws will also deter some of the lazy, irresponsible idiots who ARE law abiding, but just too stupid to lock their guns up around the kids.
We all have our opinions.. I think stricter laws could help in some ways. In fact, I read that Adam Lanza went to buy a gun and decided not to because of the waiting period. Then he decided it was easier to steal his mom's guns.
Yeah, I hear ya... I think with accidents involving children and guns, the gun owner should get a minimum 25 years or more.
With the Lanza thing, I was just thinking if there was a longer waiting period, in some cases (other cases) it might give people enough time to identify instabilities in a person. I think I also heard one of those recent mass shooters was turned down because the seller thought he was acting a bit off. I know when there's a will there's a way is likely going to win out, but slowing the process could expose people too.
i'd have to agree with stronger penalties for accidents. it seems as if right now the loss of your child is punishment enough, which I think leads to carelessness. if people could actually get in trouble for being irresponsible like that, it might change their attitude about unsecure guns. as far as adam lanza goes, what's the old saying? where there's a will there's a way.
Not to mention when someone has the will and the means. Lethal duo. You can't do anything about the first, but you certainly could limit the extent of the mayhem if you were inclined to do so. As your posts have reflected since the Newtown tragedy... you are not inclined: we are left to presume you view these incidents as unfortunate events that are the price your country needs to pay for the right to own really cool guns.
You guys have done pretty well lately though. Aside from the regular, 'run-of-the-mill' gun homicides that Mickeyrat tries to keep everyone up to speed with... you haven't had any elementary school or theater shootings for6 months now.
I know what you mean, I feel the way about cars that you do about guns and vice versa I think. kids all the way up to old folks mangled up in cars, but hey it's an unfortunate event that happens so we can drive cool cars and get to work 10 minutes earlier. but yeah nail on the head on my feelings about guns. as far as people getting mowed down by some wackjob with a gun?, ohhh just give it time my friend.
i'd have to agree with stronger penalties for accidents. it seems as if right now the loss of your child is punishment enough, which I think leads to carelessness. if people could actually get in trouble for being irresponsible like that, it might change their attitude about unsecure guns. as far as adam lanza goes, what's the old saying? where there's a will there's a way.
Not to mention when someone has the will and the means. Lethal duo. You can't do anything about the first, but you certainly could limit the extent of the mayhem if you were inclined to do so. As your posts have reflected since the Newtown tragedy... you are not inclined: we are left to presume you view these incidents as unfortunate events that are the price your country needs to pay for the right to own really cool guns.
You guys have done pretty well lately though. Aside from the regular, 'run-of-the-mill' gun homicides that Mickeyrat tries to keep everyone up to speed with... you haven't had any elementary school or theater shootings for6 months now.
if you think what I believe is stupid, bizarre, ridiculous or outrageous.....it's ok, I think I had a brain tumor when I wrote that.
I know what you mean, I feel the way about cars that you do about guns and vice versa I think. kids all the way up to old folks mangled up in cars, but hey it's an unfortunate event that happens so we can drive cool cars and get to work 10 minutes earlier. but yeah nail on the head on my feelings about guns. as far as people getting mowed down by some wackjob with a gun?, ohhh just give it time my friend.
i'd have to agree with stronger penalties for accidents. it seems as if right now the loss of your child is punishment enough, which I think leads to carelessness. if people could actually get in trouble for being irresponsible like that, it might change their attitude about unsecure guns. as far as adam lanza goes, what's the old saying? where there's a will there's a way.
Not to mention when someone has the will and the means. Lethal duo. You can't do anything about the first, but you certainly could limit the extent of the mayhem if you were inclined to do so. As your posts have reflected since the Newtown tragedy... you are not inclined: we are left to presume you view these incidents as unfortunate events that are the price your country needs to pay for the right to own really cool guns.
You guys have done pretty well lately though. Aside from the regular, 'run-of-the-mill' gun homicides that Mickeyrat tries to keep everyone up to speed with... you haven't had any elementary school or theater shootings for6 months now.
I'm with you on the car thing. They post speed limits everywhere... yet make cars that travel well in excess of 100mph. Verona, if I came across as painting you as an insensitive buffoon... I apologize. I know you are not one of the bad people, but for the life of me... I just can't understand the mentality.
At least cars serve an everyday purpose. Outside of military action and specialized law enforcement... what purpose does an AR-15 have? Don't say protection because in my mind, a 12 gauge offers more than enough without the potential for mayhem in classrooms and theaters.
all good yo, no offense taken, my mentality is this...you're right, you're right about all your arguments in regards to guns. for me, a preventable death should try to be prevented, whether it's by guns, cars, alcohol, tobacco, knives whatever. so the anti gun movement seems to me to be just that, anti gun. I don't believe it's about saving lives. I believe most people pick out guns because they don't have them or use them, but if you were to say hey let's take your car because other people kill people with theirs, it would be oh oh wait a second I need my car. I'm not hurting anyone with my car. you can't take my car. same thing with tobacco, alcohol, and other killers. that being said, until I hear people getting as vocal about all the causes of death, and not just guns, then i'm not gonna be a part of what I consider, to be a great hypocrisy.
as far as necessity being an issue. what do we need as human beings to survive? oxygen, water, food, and sleep? I think that's it. so if we're talking about getting rid of guns because of a lack of necessity, there's a lot more on that list than just guns. but that being said, if I put a toilet paper holder and a can opener on my assault rifle, boom, necessary.
if you think what I believe is stupid, bizarre, ridiculous or outrageous.....it's ok, I think I had a brain tumor when I wrote that.
all good yo, no offense taken, my mentality is this...you're right, you're right about all your arguments in regards to guns. for me, a preventable death should try to be prevented, whether it's by guns, cars, alcohol, tobacco, knives whatever. so the anti gun movement seems to me to be just that, anti gun. I don't believe it's about saving lives. I believe most people pick out guns because they don't have them or use them, but if you were to say hey let's take your car because other people kill people with theirs, it would be oh oh wait a second I need my car. I'm not hurting anyone with my car. you can't take my car. same thing with tobacco, alcohol, and other killers. that being said, until I hear people getting as vocal about all the causes of death, and not just guns, then i'm not gonna be a part of what I consider, to be a great hypocrisy.
as far as necessity being an issue. what do we need as human beings to survive? oxygen, water, food, and sleep? I think that's it. so if we're talking about getting rid of guns because of a lack of necessity, there's a lot more on that list than just guns. but that being said, if I put a toilet paper holder and a can opener on my assault rifle, boom, necessary.
I very much disagree with that statement I underlined. I think many people simply think that more can be done to save lives. Or at least, we should experiment with laws or restrictions. Also, I will admit that the media does over do it. its an easy topic to sensationalize. But once each of us see the horrors and imagine the insanity that occurs in a classroom when 30 kids are gunned down, or dozens of movie go-ers are shot in their seats, or a politician is shot in the head and several others killed...not to mention the thousands of kids killed by accident every year with irresponsible gun owners -- I think some people just think that it would be silly to not fight it a bit. Especially since it seems to be getting worse, and guns now outnumber people in the US.
And yes, one of the main reasons guns are an easy target is because they simply arent seen as a day to day necessity. I get your point about whats necessary, but lets be realistic. And I do completely believe in guns for protection, but there's a breaking point at which their availability and ease to acquire are just becoming laughable.
I do know that texting while driving is a HUGE problem, and many people are standing up against that. Laws are being implemented all the time. Some intersections are more dangerous than others - they might add a stop light. More deaths on a highway in a specific region will result in guard rails, lights, or reduced speed limits. This stuff does happen. So why should we sit back and watch gun violence and accidents go rampant?
The people dying because of guns are dying at the hands of criminals who don't care about the laws. Gun laws, by definition will not apply to criminals, will only affect law-abiding citizens and do not act as a deterrent against violent crime.
Dont forget about the thousands and thousands of accidents (mostly involving KIDS). I just saw another story about a 5 year old who shot herself in the head and died. They're in the news in my area ever week/month or so... Personally, I think more stringent laws will also deter some of the lazy, irresponsible idiots who ARE law abiding, but just too stupid to lock their guns up around the kids.
We all have our opinions.. I think stricter laws could help in some ways. In fact, I read that Adam Lanza went to buy a gun and decided not to because of the waiting period. Then he decided it was easier to steal his mom's guns.
JP all the kids you speak of have a parent at fault not the gun or the gun maker.
I didn't address accidents because, short of taking away every gun in the US, gun-related accidents aren't 100% avoidable. There is no legislation short of that that will help in that regard. (We've all be assured time and time again here on AMT that no one is talking about taking guns away.)
Furthermore, that is more of a people issue than a gun issue. People need to be responsible, keep anything dangerous out of the reach of children and pay attention to what their kids are doing.
The people dying because of guns are dying at the hands of criminals who don't care about the laws. Gun laws, by definition will not apply to criminals, will only affect law-abiding citizens and do not act as a deterrent against violent crime.
Dont forget about the thousands and thousands of accidents (mostly involving KIDS). I just saw another story about a 5 year old who shot herself in the head and died. They're in the news in my area ever week/month or so... Personally, I think more stringent laws will also deter some of the lazy, irresponsible idiots who ARE law abiding, but just too stupid to lock their guns up around the kids.
We all have our opinions.. I think stricter laws could help in some ways. In fact, I read that Adam Lanza went to buy a gun and decided not to because of the waiting period. Then he decided it was easier to steal his mom's guns.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
If you can't, with your rose colored glasses, see that there is a gun violence problem in MY country, there's no point in discussing this issue with you. Perhaps you'd like to offer one? What does Oh Canada do differently than the US in regards to guns, gun ownership, regulation, licensing, restricting, etc. of firearms? Seeing you're a resident of Oh Canada, I'm ready for my lesson, professor. Careful with the links to the prestigious Prager University, though. How about some links to Oh Canadian law as they relate to firearms?
So what law do you think would have stopped this tragedy?
the bible says murderers will not inherit Gods kingdom unless ''they heartfully repent'' and thou shalt not kill and that those who die will be resurrected and those using the sword perish by the sword but its a different story for the angels and their supervisors instructions they can do that kinda thing as long as they have been permitted but thats more of a heavenly thing none of Gods childrens business
there is no cure in this anymore.. life doesnt mean anything and insstead something to change with that fuckin guns,people lifes become statistics at the news..
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Comments
30 Bills is suggesting so. He might be fevered, but it is his opinion when offering such a piece. If you read back through some of the more detailed threads- such as the Newtown one- any unbiased person weighing the arguments offered can safely say the side that argued for gun reform did so convincingly. It was a thundering actually.
Your version of an 'assault rifle' and mine might differ. Have a look at this guy use his AR-15 and tell me how effective this style would be shooting kindergarten kids in a classroom or people in a theater? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD213VW6WjY
On this note... where do you think your next expression of rage is going to be? It likely won't be long, eh? Geez man. Why do citizens need such weaponry? There is no need for your neighbours to be in possession of such a weapon. If someone wants self-defence... a shotgun is more than adequate.
Yes, there are many guns on the streets in our cities. So... why add more? Get rid of handguns to anyone who simply wants one- the background checks have been posted on here for various states and they are a joke. As for the assault rifles... well... what can anyone really say? I know they are pretty cool and I wouldn't mind having one myself to shoot beer cans with, but I can live without it knowing the kids in my country are much safer without them. Our huge border has likely seen a few AR-15s introduced to our society, but they have not been problematic given anyone cannot just go to the local sporting goods and buy one- let alone buy ammunition.
My governor and the GOP controlled house with do nothing to change this. IN FACT they have expanded the reciprocity of concealed carry with more states.
The response to the emails I have sent to my GOP senator and my governor both state that tragedies like Newtown and in Ohio ,Chardon wouldn't be prevented.
Ok, maybe not, BUT what of the other people dying on a daily basis due to the proliferation of guns on our streets.
There simply must be an easy way to trace a purchase of the weapons sold in any venue in this state. Further I believe that if an owner has not secured their weapons in such a manner to reasonably guard against theft, then they should be help criminally liable if their mis-stored weapons get stolen and are used in a crime later. And while it may rub salt in the wounds of a parent who's child has gotten their guns and killed a sibling or someone else, they too should face charges related to that death.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Is someone fails a background check, it is illegal for them to buy a gun anywhere in the US. The system is called NICS and stands for National Instant Criminal Background check system.
You can't get a legal concealed-carry permit in most states without passing background checks, completing a firearms safety exam and displaying safe gun-handling/proficiency to a certified instructor. Also, one must be a resident in the state where the license is issued, preventing out-of-state loopholes. (All of this is changing very quickly, so this may not be the case for long.)
The people dying because of guns are dying at the hands of criminals who don't care about the laws. Gun laws, by definition will not apply to criminals, will only affect law-abiding citizens and do not act as a deterrent against violent crime.
I totally agree with everything in the last paragraph. However, the "easy way to trace" is dangerously close to a gun registry program which I feel is a slippery slope and should be avoided if possible.
Guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are a necessary part of our country's checks and balances system, like it or not. Guns in the hands of criminals are, obviously, very bad for everyone.
I would love to live in a world where people always looked after one another, never victimized each other and lived in peace and harmony with all living things. However, we are not there.
The police and/or government are not responsible for protecting us from the other, violent human beings, only solving the crime after the fact. I subscribe to the philosophy that I am responsible for the protection and survival of my family and myself.
Godfather.
Dont forget about the thousands and thousands of accidents (mostly involving KIDS). I just saw another story about a 5 year old who shot herself in the head and died. They're in the news in my area ever week/month or so... Personally, I think more stringent laws will also deter some of the lazy, irresponsible idiots who ARE law abiding, but just too stupid to lock their guns up around the kids.
We all have our opinions.. I think stricter laws could help in some ways. In fact, I read that Adam Lanza went to buy a gun and decided not to because of the waiting period. Then he decided it was easier to steal his mom's guns.
Politics aside, it does not speak well of a community where someone shoots someone dead and then gets back in line to buy a pair of shoes.
:fp:
Are you referring to Dudeman's response to me?
Mickeyrat has already pointed out that he's got it wrong. Try to keep up.
Did you check out the Youtube link with the AR-15 demonstration? Do you seriously think people in your neighbourhood need such a weapon? If so... why?
Yeah, I hear ya... I think with accidents involving children and guns, the gun owner should get a minimum 25 years or more.
With the Lanza thing, I was just thinking if there was a longer waiting period, in some cases (other cases) it might give people enough time to identify instabilities in a person. I think I also heard one of those recent mass shooters was turned down because the seller thought he was acting a bit off. I know when there's a will there's a way is likely going to win out, but slowing the process could expose people too.
Not to mention when someone has the will and the means. Lethal duo. You can't do anything about the first, but you certainly could limit the extent of the mayhem if you were inclined to do so. As your posts have reflected since the Newtown tragedy... you are not inclined: we are left to presume you view these incidents as unfortunate events that are the price your country needs to pay for the right to own really cool guns.
You guys have done pretty well lately though. Aside from the regular, 'run-of-the-mill' gun homicides that Mickeyrat tries to keep everyone up to speed with... you haven't had any elementary school or theater shootings for6 months now.
I'm with you on the car thing. They post speed limits everywhere... yet make cars that travel well in excess of 100mph. Verona, if I came across as painting you as an insensitive buffoon... I apologize. I know you are not one of the bad people, but for the life of me... I just can't understand the mentality.
At least cars serve an everyday purpose. Outside of military action and specialized law enforcement... what purpose does an AR-15 have? Don't say protection because in my mind, a 12 gauge offers more than enough without the potential for mayhem in classrooms and theaters.
as far as necessity being an issue. what do we need as human beings to survive? oxygen, water, food, and sleep? I think that's it. so if we're talking about getting rid of guns because of a lack of necessity, there's a lot more on that list than just guns. but that being said, if I put a toilet paper holder and a can opener on my assault rifle, boom, necessary.
I very much disagree with that statement I underlined. I think many people simply think that more can be done to save lives. Or at least, we should experiment with laws or restrictions. Also, I will admit that the media does over do it. its an easy topic to sensationalize. But once each of us see the horrors and imagine the insanity that occurs in a classroom when 30 kids are gunned down, or dozens of movie go-ers are shot in their seats, or a politician is shot in the head and several others killed...not to mention the thousands of kids killed by accident every year with irresponsible gun owners -- I think some people just think that it would be silly to not fight it a bit. Especially since it seems to be getting worse, and guns now outnumber people in the US.
And yes, one of the main reasons guns are an easy target is because they simply arent seen as a day to day necessity. I get your point about whats necessary, but lets be realistic. And I do completely believe in guns for protection, but there's a breaking point at which their availability and ease to acquire are just becoming laughable.
I do know that texting while driving is a HUGE problem, and many people are standing up against that. Laws are being implemented all the time. Some intersections are more dangerous than others - they might add a stop light. More deaths on a highway in a specific region will result in guard rails, lights, or reduced speed limits. This stuff does happen. So why should we sit back and watch gun violence and accidents go rampant?
JP all the kids you speak of have a parent at fault not the gun or the gun maker.
Godfather.
Furthermore, that is more of a people issue than a gun issue. People need to be responsible, keep anything dangerous out of the reach of children and pay attention to what their kids are doing.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
unless ''they heartfully repent''
and thou shalt not kill
and that those who die will be resurrected
and those using the sword perish by the sword
but its a different story for the angels and their
supervisors instructions they can do that kinda
thing as long as they have been permitted
but thats more of a heavenly thing none
of Gods childrens business
life doesnt mean anything and insstead something to change with that fuckin guns,people lifes become statistics at the news..
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”