to thirty bills, my main problem with banning assault rifles would be that i don't think it can be done. i know how the black market works, and i just think it would be impossible.
At first... it wouldn't. There is no 'quick fix' to the problem. But in time, especially by restricting ammunition sales for 'illegal weapons'... the guns would dry up and not be so abundant and readily available.
I'm pretty sure we have some 'illegal weapons' in Canada, but they aren't just lying around or on sale at Big 5 Sporting Goods. We have a criminal element and mentally ill people as well that- with some exceptions I'm sure- have no access to these weapons. As a result, Canada is safer. We have accepted the type of reforms necessary to safeguard our citizens. It's out of concern that a Canadian such as myself would encourage you guys to do the same: this isn't about make the gun owners suffer as much as it is about keep your children safe.
Restricting ammunition sales for illegal weapons? I'm not sure I follow. Like restricting all ammunition that can be used in a semi-auto or fully-auto gun? If so...that shows good reason why gun owners do not trust anything that comes out of the anti-gun nut's mouth. Maybe I just misunderstood.
A banning of assault rifles would be a tricky process. In all likelihood, There would be a 'grandfather' clause for existing 'legal' guns. The ammunition for these types of guns shouldn't be available for any old person walking into Walmart to purchase. There would be restrictions on the sale of such ammunition. I would also think that there would be very strict penalties for those purchasing ammunition for non-registered weapons.
People can't be expected to write essays making what seem like very simple posts that are very easy to understand.
I believe this post marks the first time I have ever heard the expression 'anti-gun nut'. I am assuming one might hear this term at the local landfill while shootin' stuff?[/quote]
So you are wanting to restrict the sale of all ammunition...seeing as how the ammunition used in "assault weapons" is the exact same used in hunting rifles... The only place I have heard "gun nut" used is by people that have a vitamin D deficiency and lack a broad sense of reality, but who is keeping score. I promise that there are plenty of people talking about the anti-gun nuts if it makes you feel better, ha. I, for one, reload my own ammo because I have a specialized hunting round that Wal Mart does not and will never sell As someone earlier posted, reloading ammo is done my a large percentage of people, not to mention hobbiests making their own guns and callibers...they are here to stay.
A banning of assault rifles would be a tricky process. In all likelihood, There would be a 'grandfather' clause for existing 'legal' guns. The ammunition for these types of guns shouldn't be available for any old person walking into Walmart to purchase. There would be restrictions on the sale of such ammunition. I would also think that there would be very strict penalties for those purchasing ammunition for non-registered weapons.
People can't be expected to write essays making what seem like very simple posts that are very easy to understand.
I believe this post marks the first time I have ever heard the expression 'anti-gun nut'. I am assuming one might hear this term at the local landfill while shootin' stuff?
So you are wanting to restrict the sale of all ammunition...seeing as how the ammunition used in "assault weapons" is the exact same used in hunting rifles... The only place I have heard "gun nut" used is by people that have a vitamin D deficiency and lack a broad sense of reality, but who is keeping score. I promise that there are plenty of people talking about the anti-gun nuts if it makes you feel better, ha. I, for one, reload my own ammo because I have a specialized hunting round that Wal Mart does not and will never sell As someone earlier posted, reloading ammo is done my a large percentage of people, not to mention hobbiests making their own guns and callibers...they are here to stay.
Ammunition compatibiliy issues aside, I agree with you that your country is fucked. The guns that we speak of are there to stay and so is the tradeoff: school children so that you can shoot shit.
Ammunition compatibiliy issues aside, I agree with you that your country is fucked. The guns that we speak of are there to stay and so is the tradeoff: school children so that you can shoot shit.
Ammunition compatibiliy issues aside, I agree with you that your country is fucked. The guns that we speak of are there to stay and so is the tradeoff: school children so that you can shoot shit.
Ammunition compatibiliy issues aside, I agree with you that your country is fucked. The guns that we speak of are there to stay and so is the tradeoff: school children so that you can shoot shit.
I am very sorry for the victims but yes I am laughing at everybody that believes gun control will stop sad issues like the one you just posted and also blame a gun for what just happened, I read another post on the enter-web that said "shall we blame spoons for making people fat ?" or do cars drive drunk ? if you you think about it there is one issue in all these killings or deaths by accident....people....not guns or cars or spoons, people with the ability to think and know wrong from right.
I am very sorry for the victims but yes I am laughing at everybody that believes gun control will stop sad issues like the one you just posted and also blame a gun for what just happened, I read another post on the enter-web that said "shall we blame spoons for making people fat ?" or do cars drive drunk ? if you you think about it there is one issue in all these killings or deaths by accident....people....not guns or cars or spoons, people with the ability to think and know wrong from right.
Godfather.
Human beings are entirely to blame for these incidents. And there is no cure for what ails human beings and their propensity for violence when they are so inclined. This is why gun control is an extremely prudent measure. Just as you would imprison a dangerous criminal to prevent him from inflicting harm upon someone... you would take measures to prevent guns from so easily falling into the wrong hands.
There were two things said in the passage above:
1. Humans are responsible for these crimes. Human beings are inherently evil.
2. Guns are too accessible in the US. Limited availability would decrease the number of incidents we read of yesterday and the ones we will read of shortly.
No gun control= the trade off that you laughed at (guns for school children). The right to shoot things supersedes the desire for public safety and this, to me, is absolutely, 100%, unbelievably, fucking ridiculous.
3) Constitution vs Bible: It seems to me that most of the pro-gun lobby group are staunch christians as well but they would defend their right to self defence via the constitution. How do they reconcile this with the bible's "do not kill" policy? Does the constitution come above the bible to them? The constitution is man-made, (not saying whether the bible is or isn't) so why can't it be changed or updated?
Anyway, just wondering!
I've read through the thread and seen a lot of responses to your first and second questions. I'll take a stab at this one.
Here in Texas, most households have guns, regardless of political affiliation or religion. But those who are noisiest about their gun rights are often also the loudest about their Christian "faith", which has little to do with the tenets of Christ and more to do with banning gay marriage, abortion, morning after pill, teaching of evolution etc. These pseudochristians are more about imposing their views on others than about following the teachings of Christ. At least amongst my acquaintances, those who are truly adherents of any faith tend to be more liberal, and most do not own guns or support unlimited gun ownership.
Thirty Bills, just for the record I am not aginest all forms of gun control infact I believe some gun control laws are a must, I also think that medical records should be accessable when anyone buys any gun and finger printing should be required for positive ID when buying a gun also.
Thirty Bills, just for the record I am not aginest all forms of gun control infact I believe some gun control laws are a must, I also think that medical records should be accessable when anyone buys any gun and finger printing should be required for positive ID when buying a gun also.
Godfather.
I think I've come to understand you as much as one might hope to communicating through a message board, Godfather. Your thought process is different than mine, but they are yours based on your experiences to date and you make credible efforts to validate your opposing point of view. I'm fine with you. I'm not one to judge here... not that I think you would give a shit even if I did!
I hope you realize that I don't actually have a pony in this race. My country is doing quite well with regards to monitoring the types of weapons we allow our citizens to possess as well as denying access to some citizens who shouldn't possess any type of gun at all. Sure, some gun enthusiasts are likely ticked that they can't go to the range and squeeze off a couple hundred shots at a human target in the distance, but the benefits for the greater whole outweigh the 'inconveniances' for a few- we are safer given the limits to which we have placed on gun ownership.
Your country will have to determine what is more important and to this point in time... it is fair to say that the right to own assault rifles and handguns trumps the need to make your cities safer- but the day you make meaningful and nation-wide policies... your country will be safer.
The bad guys will get the guns and what will we do then argument that is often made is garbage. I guarantee you that in Canada, we have some bad dudes with some bad guns. If they choose to use them... it's to use them against other bad guys. These 'bad guys with bad guns' don't have their guns lying around for their children to grab and use against their schoolmates and they do not target movie goers and elementary classrooms. The guns we hear of in your country's national tragedies are guns that are easily accessible to someone who is ultimately having a bad day (or week... or year). It's only natural though- Canada would share similar stories if we had such availability because I also guarantee you this: we have mentally disturbed people as well. They just don't have the means to express themselves like some of your disturbed citizens did (and will in the future).
Thirty Bills, just for the record I am not aginest all forms of gun control infact I believe some gun control laws are a must, I also think that medical records should be accessable when anyone buys any gun and finger printing should be required for positive ID when buying a gun also.
Godfather.
I think I've come to understand you as much as one might hope to communicating through a message board, Godfather. Your thought process is different than mine, but they are yours based on your experiences to date and you make credible efforts to validate your opposing point of view. I'm fine with you. I'm not one to judge here... not that I think you would give a shit even if I did!
I hope you realize that I don't actually have a pony in this race. My country is doing quite well with regards to monitoring the types of weapons we allow our citizens to possess as well as denying access to some citizens who shouldn't possess any type of gun at all. Sure, some gun enthusiasts are likely ticked that they can't go to the range and squeeze off a couple hundred shots at a human target in the distance, but the benefits for the greater whole outweigh the 'inconveniances' for a few- we are safer given the limits to which we have placed on gun ownership.
Your country will have to determine what is more important and to this point in time... it is fair to say that the right to own assault rifles and handguns trumps the need to make your cities safer- but the day you make meaningful and nation-wide policies... your country will be safer.
The bad guys will get the guns and what will we do then argument that is often made is garbage. I guarantee you that in Canada, we have some bad dudes with some bad guns. If they choose to use them... it's to use them against other bad guys. These 'bad guys with bad guns' don't have their guns lying around for their children to grab and use against their schoolmates and they do not target movie goers and elementary classrooms. The guns we hear of in your country's national tragedies are guns that are easily accessible to someone who is ultimately having a bad day (or week... or year). It's only natural though- Canada would share similar stories if we had such availability because I also guarantee you this: we have mentally disturbed people as well. They just don't have the means to express themselves like some of your disturbed citizens did (and will in the future).
ya know if I lived in Canada I would go along with the gun laws there just fine,no problem but America is a little different in the repect that its citizens have owned guns from the very start,I'm not saying it's a birth right but it is something that has been handed down from generation to generation along with other thing's that we take for granted, it will take many generation to before guns are completely out lawed by people that believe as you do but honestly I never see that happening but it's just a matter of time gefore law become much stricter like in new zealand where you have to apply for a gun lic. just to won a hunting rifle and from what I understand it's very difficult....oooop's boss is here gotta go.
Gall Darn it. 5 year old picks up one of those guns lying around (the ones I was referring to). What can you say? Another sad tale, but not the first and not the last.
19 year old girl with a semi-automatic pistol. Why? Why the need for that gun- let alone the need or desire to bring it with her babysitting.
That girl is a fucking idiot and belongs in prison.
But you do realize she's just a drop in the bucket, right? I mean... she is an idiot, but she's not the only one. We are overrun with idiots... and they are afforded the opportunity to go and buy themselves a fancy gun. And, too often, someone pays for this and they pay dearly.
the article says she could be looking at six months to two years in prison. that's not much of a penalty for essentially giving a child a gun to play with. I would think there would have had to be one in the chamber as well as I don't think a 5 year old has the strength to pull back the slide on a .40 cal. also it said she was 19 which means she didn't buy the gun herself, she either took it from someone or it was given to her. so what are we thinking here guys? there is no gun control law that could have prevented this so gun prohibition is the obvious answer? if there were no guns, this wouldn't have happened.
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.
so what are we thinking here guys? there is no gun control law that could have prevented this so gun prohibition is the obvious answer? if there were no guns, this wouldn't have happened.
You are correct stating the obvious: if there were no guns, this wouldn't have happened.
But nobody, at any time, has said "there should be no guns." Many have said, with great frequency, that there needs to be limits on the types of guns and who can access them. They say this because they acknowledge there is a problem and they wish to take steps to address the problem... just like other 'developed' countries have.
Every country has its share of social inequity, poverty, mental illness, depression, unemployment... but not every country has an abundance of readily available firearms for people to get their hands on at a moment's notice and express their rage in homicidal fashion. The US is quite unique with this regard and, as a result, you boast an exceptionally high murder rate via the gun, as well as the periodic mass shooting that leaves the whole planet shaking their heads (and a few middle east countries cheering).
It's alarming that some of your 19 year olds feel the desire to have semi-automatic handguns. Our 19 year olds are wondering how they can get better phones. If the option was there though, I guarantee that we would begin to develop the same problems that you guys realize. It just makes sense of course.
so what are we thinking here guys? there is no gun control law that could have prevented this so gun prohibition is the obvious answer? if there were no guns, this wouldn't have happened.
You are correct stating the obvious: if there were no guns, this wouldn't have happened.
But nobody, at any time, has said "there should be no guns." Many have said, with great frequency, that there needs to be limits on the types of guns and who can access them. They say this because they acknowledge there is a problem and they wish to take steps to address the problem... just like other 'developed' countries have.
Every country has its share of social inequity, poverty, mental illness, depression, unemployment... but not every country has an abundance of readily available firearms for people to get their hands on at a moment's notice and express their rage in homicidal fashion. The US is quite unique with this regard and, as a result, you boast an exceptionally high murder rate via the gun, as well as the periodic mass shooting that leaves the whole planet shaking their heads (and a few middle east countries cheering).
It's alarming that some of your 19 year olds feel the desire to have semi-automatic handguns. Our 19 year olds are wondering how they can get better phones. If the option was there though, I guarantee that we would begin to develop the same problems that you guys realize. It just makes sense of course.
There is too much hyperbole from blowhards on either side of the debate to ever have a legitimate discussion about the actual problems that increase our penchant for violence here in the states. Unfortunately those problems will always take the back seat to "from my cold dead hands" crowd or Liberal congressmen that want to score points by faking concern but doing nothing.
The reason I say that is that assault weapons ban expired years ago, and the violent crime rate has dropped just about every year since. It isn't the tools that are the problem, it is something else, something that I don't know if anyone will every put a finger on it when we focus on the tools. Real solutions aren't easily realized, but nonsense scores easy political points...which do you think will get done by our "leaders?"
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
so what are we thinking here guys? there is no gun control law that could have prevented this so gun prohibition is the obvious answer? if there were no guns, this wouldn't have happened.
You are correct stating the obvious: if there were no guns, this wouldn't have happened.
But nobody, at any time, has said "there should be no guns." Many have said, with great frequency, that there needs to be limits on the types of guns and who can access them. They say this because they acknowledge there is a problem and they wish to take steps to address the problem... just like other 'developed' countries have.
Every country has its share of social inequity, poverty, mental illness, depression, unemployment... but not every country has an abundance of readily available firearms for people to get their hands on at a moment's notice and express their rage in homicidal fashion. The US is quite unique with this regard and, as a result, you boast an exceptionally high murder rate via the gun, as well as the periodic mass shooting that leaves the whole planet shaking their heads (and a few middle east countries cheering).
It's alarming that some of your 19 year olds feel the desire to have semi-automatic handguns. Our 19 year olds are wondering how they can get better phones. If the option was there though, I guarantee that we would begin to develop the same problems that you guys realize. It just makes sense of course.
There is too much hyperbole from blowhards on either side of the debate to ever have a legitimate discussion about the actual problems that increase our penchant for violence here in the states. Unfortunately those problems will always take the back seat to "from my cold dead hands" crowd or Liberal congressmen that want to score points by faking concern but doing nothing.
The reason I say that is that assault weapons ban expired years ago, and the violent crime rate has dropped just about every year since. It isn't the tools that are the problem, it is something else, something that I don't know if anyone will every put a finger on it when we focus on the tools. Real solutions aren't easily realized, but nonsense scores easy political points...which do you think will get done by our "leaders?"
I'm unclear if you have referred to my posting as 'nonsense' or not. I'll respond thinking this isn't the case seeing as you are normally well-versed and usually a little less hostile.
I don't think that the highlighted portion of my post qualifies as 'hyperbole'. I think it's a simple and irrefutable fact that guns are too accessible in the US and we have seen the results of this fact: kids are consistently stumbling across them and killing their brothers or sisters by accident... and angry people are resorting to using them in conflict before they have a chance to cool down.
The statistics- generated by very reputable sources- have been presented numerous times in this forum detailing the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths.
There are underlying problems of course... but that doesn't mean one shouldn't 'control the bleed' while attempting to heal.
as I have been saying "it's a people issue not a gun issue" this is not the first time a "box cutter" has been used in a crime/murder, people...sick and twisted people who want to kill will do it any way possible...no gun no problem used a knife,box cutter,baseball bat etc.
I'm unclear if you have referred to my posting as 'nonsense' or not. I'll respond thinking this isn't the case seeing as you are normally well-versed and usually a little less hostile.
I don't think that the highlighted portion of my post qualifies as 'hyperbole'. I think it's a simple and irrefutable fact that guns are too accessible in the US and we have seen the results of this fact: kids are consistently stumbling across them and killing their brothers or sisters by accident... and angry people are resorting to using them in conflict before they have a chance to cool down.
The statistics- generated by very reputable sources- have been presented numerous times in this forum detailing the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths.
There are underlying problems of course... but that doesn't mean one shouldn't 'control the bleed' while attempting to heal.
My original post, and the reason that part was highlighted was that to say we can get guns at a moment's notice in a homicidal rage is hyperbole. But then removed that part and decided, unsuccessfully obviously, to make it a wider point about arguments on both sides containing too much hyperbole, like the thought you expressed appeared to be to me.
I wasn't calling you or your argument non-sense, I respect it and the way most of it is presented but think that trying to control the tools will, as a matter of simple impossibility at this point, be a waste of time and energy. States and cities with the tightest gun control measures experience the same problems, some to a greater extent, than the states and cities without those laws. I don't say that to mean that gun "control" laws are useless, I just think we all too often focus on the tool and not the person.
According to some the tools have grown more deadly since the assault weapons ban ended, yet we aren't seeing the same results in actual violent crime rates, we are seeing the opposite, at least according to the UCR (uniform crime report for those who didn't take way too many sociology classes like myself). in the last 20 years the violent crime rate has dropped. That doesn't mean anything to someone who was a victim of a violent crime at the hands of someone holding a gun, but statistics are everywhere and point to all sorts of correlations...but as we know and sickeningly hear all the time, correlation does not equal causation.
Gun deaths aren't all murders, I think most are suicides, and quite frankly, as someone who was in fact suicidal at one point in their lives (even tried once and got extremely lucky as a younger man, or idiot as I now look at how ridiculous it was) those people won't be stopped by simply not having a gun, they can and only will be stopped by themselves or friends and family regardless of the tools available.
My 'nonsense'' comment was directed at politicians in the US, not you, I am truly sorry if that wasn't clear. Nonsense like implying that some how a government list of all gun owners will be created for the purpose of disarmament if we have a universal background check system in place to score easy political points, or by invoking the 2nd amendment to the constitution while ignoring many of its other, less convenient parts...or by grand standing about the need to make stricter changes and then dropping it after an election...
I am not for banning of tools at all, but I think there is some room for more strictly enforced measures on who can purchase weapons and how they can be purchased is needed. But I do think those measures need to pass constitutional review. I love my guns, had to bring one out the other night but that is a completely different story and it was terrifying, but would give them up in a heart beat if someone else could guarantee my family's safety...but no one can do that.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I'm unclear if you have referred to my posting as 'nonsense' or not. I'll respond thinking this isn't the case seeing as you are normally well-versed and usually a little less hostile.
I don't think that the highlighted portion of my post qualifies as 'hyperbole'. I think it's a simple and irrefutable fact that guns are too accessible in the US and we have seen the results of this fact: kids are consistently stumbling across them and killing their brothers or sisters by accident... and angry people are resorting to using them in conflict before they have a chance to cool down.
The statistics- generated by very reputable sources- have been presented numerous times in this forum detailing the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths.
There are underlying problems of course... but that doesn't mean one shouldn't 'control the bleed' while attempting to heal.
My original post, and the reason that part was highlighted was that to say we can get guns at a moment's notice in a homicidal rage is hyperbole. But then removed that part and decided, unsuccessfully obviously, to make it a wider point about arguments on both sides containing too much hyperbole, like the thought you expressed appeared to be to me.
I wasn't calling you or your argument non-sense, I respect it and the way most of it is presented but think that trying to control the tools will, as a matter of simple impossibility at this point, be a waste of time and energy. States and cities with the tightest gun control measures experience the same problems, some to a greater extent, than the states and cities without those laws. I don't say that to mean that gun "control" laws are useless, I just think we all too often focus on the tool and not the person.
According to some the tools have grown more deadly since the assault weapons ban ended, yet we aren't seeing the same results in actual violent crime rates, we are seeing the opposite, at least according to the UCR (uniform crime report for those who didn't take way too many sociology classes like myself). in the last 20 years the violent crime rate has dropped. That doesn't mean anything to someone who was a victim of a violent crime at the hands of someone holding a gun, but statistics are everywhere and point to all sorts of correlations...but as we know and sickeningly hear all the time, correlation does not equal causation.
Gun deaths aren't all murders, I think most are suicides, and quite frankly, as someone who was in fact suicidal at one point in their lives (even tried once and got extremely lucky as a younger man, or idiot as I now look at how ridiculous it was) those people won't be stopped by simply not having a gun, they can and only will be stopped by themselves or friends and family regardless of the tools available.
My 'nonsense'' comment was directed at politicians in the US, not you, I am truly sorry if that wasn't clear. Nonsense like implying that some how a government list of all gun owners will be created for the purpose of disarmament if we have a universal background check system in place to score easy political points, or by invoking the 2nd amendment to the constitution while ignoring many of its other, less convenient parts...or by grand standing about the need to make stricter changes and then dropping it after an election...
I am not for banning of tools at all, but I think there is some room for more strictly enforced measures on who can purchase weapons and how they can be purchased is needed. But I do think those measures need to pass constitutional review. I love my guns, had to bring one out the other night but that is a completely different story and it was terrifying, but would give them up in a heart beat if someone else could guarantee my family's safety...but no one can do that.
No problems. As I said in my preface, it was a little unclear, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt based on how credible you typically are on this forum.
I wish to speak to two aspects of your post- not that the rest isn't worthy of reflecting on!
Firstly, any specific areas will not experience the success they seek by enacting gun control measures when neighbouring areas provide access. This must make sense to those presenting the 'Chicago' argument. To this point I would also add that success can only be measured in the long term: immediate success is impossible given the current proliferation and abundance of weapons already within the public. Employing strategies such as a 'buy back program' would assist with expediting the desired results. Restricting ammunition sales to those with registered guns and eliminating ammunition sales for illegal weapons would help as well.
Secondly, the lack of opportunity for impoverished kids growing into adults is one of the underlying causal factors that I think your country needs to address. Just as Mexican youth can join a cartel and enjoy a lifestyle that is simply beyond them, despair or a lack of hope drives a significant portion of your youth sector to a life in crime. Some might argue that a kid should feel good about a life behind a fast food counter, but think how such a prospect might be a source of frustration and drive one to become angry. It's really too late for the adults who have become a by-product of your country's inequitable system, but I feel your country has a chance to 'curb the bleeding' (slowly at first and incrementally faster) by providing more to those that need it. I know your country typically hates anything that looks socialist, but my pea brain sees no other way.
I completely agree. America is not a compassionate country, social mobility is very poor and many people are completely disenfranchised from society by poverty, further the political discourse is dominated by demonisation of those less well off.
Poverty is the main driving factor behind violence in all societies, gun control laws will help somewhat, but moreso with accidental shootings, young kids getting hold of weapons etc than with violent crime. America's big problem is a social one.
Comments
A banning of assault rifles would be a tricky process. In all likelihood, There would be a 'grandfather' clause for existing 'legal' guns. The ammunition for these types of guns shouldn't be available for any old person walking into Walmart to purchase. There would be restrictions on the sale of such ammunition. I would also think that there would be very strict penalties for those purchasing ammunition for non-registered weapons.
People can't be expected to write essays making what seem like very simple posts that are very easy to understand.
I believe this post marks the first time I have ever heard the expression 'anti-gun nut'. I am assuming one might hear this term at the local landfill while shootin' stuff?[/quote]
So you are wanting to restrict the sale of all ammunition...seeing as how the ammunition used in "assault weapons" is the exact same used in hunting rifles... The only place I have heard "gun nut" used is by people that have a vitamin D deficiency and lack a broad sense of reality, but who is keeping score. I promise that there are plenty of people talking about the anti-gun nuts if it makes you feel better, ha. I, for one, reload my own ammo because I have a specialized hunting round that Wal Mart does not and will never sell
So you are wanting to restrict the sale of all ammunition...seeing as how the ammunition used in "assault weapons" is the exact same used in hunting rifles... The only place I have heard "gun nut" used is by people that have a vitamin D deficiency and lack a broad sense of reality, but who is keeping score. I promise that there are plenty of people talking about the anti-gun nuts if it makes you feel better, ha. I, for one, reload my own ammo because I have a specialized hunting round that Wal Mart does not and will never sell
Godfather.
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/2-dea ... l-shooting
Laughing now?
I am very sorry for the victims but yes I am laughing at everybody that believes gun control will stop sad issues like the one you just posted and also blame a gun for what just happened, I read another post on the enter-web that said "shall we blame spoons for making people fat ?" or do cars drive drunk ? if you you think about it there is one issue in all these killings or deaths by accident....people....not guns or cars or spoons, people with the ability to think and know wrong from right.
Godfather.
"but if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you..it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
pew..pew....pew, pew, pew, pew.
pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew
pew...pew...pew.
reload.
Human beings are entirely to blame for these incidents. And there is no cure for what ails human beings and their propensity for violence when they are so inclined. This is why gun control is an extremely prudent measure. Just as you would imprison a dangerous criminal to prevent him from inflicting harm upon someone... you would take measures to prevent guns from so easily falling into the wrong hands.
There were two things said in the passage above:
1. Humans are responsible for these crimes. Human beings are inherently evil.
2. Guns are too accessible in the US. Limited availability would decrease the number of incidents we read of yesterday and the ones we will read of shortly.
No gun control= the trade off that you laughed at (guns for school children). The right to shoot things supersedes the desire for public safety and this, to me, is absolutely, 100%, unbelievably, fucking ridiculous.
I've read through the thread and seen a lot of responses to your first and second questions. I'll take a stab at this one.
Here in Texas, most households have guns, regardless of political affiliation or religion. But those who are noisiest about their gun rights are often also the loudest about their Christian "faith", which has little to do with the tenets of Christ and more to do with banning gay marriage, abortion, morning after pill, teaching of evolution etc. These pseudochristians are more about imposing their views on others than about following the teachings of Christ. At least amongst my acquaintances, those who are truly adherents of any faith tend to be more liberal, and most do not own guns or support unlimited gun ownership.
Godfather.
I think I've come to understand you as much as one might hope to communicating through a message board, Godfather. Your thought process is different than mine, but they are yours based on your experiences to date and you make credible efforts to validate your opposing point of view. I'm fine with you. I'm not one to judge here... not that I think you would give a shit even if I did!
I hope you realize that I don't actually have a pony in this race. My country is doing quite well with regards to monitoring the types of weapons we allow our citizens to possess as well as denying access to some citizens who shouldn't possess any type of gun at all. Sure, some gun enthusiasts are likely ticked that they can't go to the range and squeeze off a couple hundred shots at a human target in the distance, but the benefits for the greater whole outweigh the 'inconveniances' for a few- we are safer given the limits to which we have placed on gun ownership.
Your country will have to determine what is more important and to this point in time... it is fair to say that the right to own assault rifles and handguns trumps the need to make your cities safer- but the day you make meaningful and nation-wide policies... your country will be safer.
The bad guys will get the guns and what will we do then argument that is often made is garbage. I guarantee you that in Canada, we have some bad dudes with some bad guns. If they choose to use them... it's to use them against other bad guys. These 'bad guys with bad guns' don't have their guns lying around for their children to grab and use against their schoolmates and they do not target movie goers and elementary classrooms. The guns we hear of in your country's national tragedies are guns that are easily accessible to someone who is ultimately having a bad day (or week... or year). It's only natural though- Canada would share similar stories if we had such availability because I also guarantee you this: we have mentally disturbed people as well. They just don't have the means to express themselves like some of your disturbed citizens did (and will in the future).
ya know if I lived in Canada I would go along with the gun laws there just fine,no problem but America is a little different in the repect that its citizens have owned guns from the very start,I'm not saying it's a birth right but it is something that has been handed down from generation to generation along with other thing's that we take for granted, it will take many generation to before guns are completely out lawed by people that believe as you do but honestly I never see that happening but it's just a matter of time gefore law become much stricter like in new zealand where you have to apply for a gun lic. just to won a hunting rifle and from what I understand it's very difficult....oooop's boss is here gotta go.
Godfather.
Don't let the boss catch you!
19 year old girl with a semi-automatic pistol. Why? Why the need for that gun- let alone the need or desire to bring it with her babysitting.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10 ... -gun?lite=
sad story.
But you do realize she's just a drop in the bucket, right? I mean... she is an idiot, but she's not the only one. We are overrun with idiots... and they are afforded the opportunity to go and buy themselves a fancy gun. And, too often, someone pays for this and they pay dearly.
Idiots with guns. Yeesh.
You are correct stating the obvious: if there were no guns, this wouldn't have happened.
But nobody, at any time, has said "there should be no guns." Many have said, with great frequency, that there needs to be limits on the types of guns and who can access them. They say this because they acknowledge there is a problem and they wish to take steps to address the problem... just like other 'developed' countries have.
Every country has its share of social inequity, poverty, mental illness, depression, unemployment... but not every country has an abundance of readily available firearms for people to get their hands on at a moment's notice and express their rage in homicidal fashion. The US is quite unique with this regard and, as a result, you boast an exceptionally high murder rate via the gun, as well as the periodic mass shooting that leaves the whole planet shaking their heads (and a few middle east countries cheering).
It's alarming that some of your 19 year olds feel the desire to have semi-automatic handguns. Our 19 year olds are wondering how they can get better phones. If the option was there though, I guarantee that we would begin to develop the same problems that you guys realize. It just makes sense of course.
There is too much hyperbole from blowhards on either side of the debate to ever have a legitimate discussion about the actual problems that increase our penchant for violence here in the states. Unfortunately those problems will always take the back seat to "from my cold dead hands" crowd or Liberal congressmen that want to score points by faking concern but doing nothing.
The reason I say that is that assault weapons ban expired years ago, and the violent crime rate has dropped just about every year since. It isn't the tools that are the problem, it is something else, something that I don't know if anyone will every put a finger on it when we focus on the tools. Real solutions aren't easily realized, but nonsense scores easy political points...which do you think will get done by our "leaders?"
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I'm unclear if you have referred to my posting as 'nonsense' or not. I'll respond thinking this isn't the case seeing as you are normally well-versed and usually a little less hostile.
I don't think that the highlighted portion of my post qualifies as 'hyperbole'. I think it's a simple and irrefutable fact that guns are too accessible in the US and we have seen the results of this fact: kids are consistently stumbling across them and killing their brothers or sisters by accident... and angry people are resorting to using them in conflict before they have a chance to cool down.
The statistics- generated by very reputable sources- have been presented numerous times in this forum detailing the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths.
There are underlying problems of course... but that doesn't mean one shouldn't 'control the bleed' while attempting to heal.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/justice/m ... ?hpt=ju_c2
Godfather.
My original post, and the reason that part was highlighted was that to say we can get guns at a moment's notice in a homicidal rage is hyperbole. But then removed that part and decided, unsuccessfully obviously, to make it a wider point about arguments on both sides containing too much hyperbole, like the thought you expressed appeared to be to me.
I wasn't calling you or your argument non-sense, I respect it and the way most of it is presented but think that trying to control the tools will, as a matter of simple impossibility at this point, be a waste of time and energy. States and cities with the tightest gun control measures experience the same problems, some to a greater extent, than the states and cities without those laws. I don't say that to mean that gun "control" laws are useless, I just think we all too often focus on the tool and not the person.
According to some the tools have grown more deadly since the assault weapons ban ended, yet we aren't seeing the same results in actual violent crime rates, we are seeing the opposite, at least according to the UCR (uniform crime report for those who didn't take way too many sociology classes like myself). in the last 20 years the violent crime rate has dropped. That doesn't mean anything to someone who was a victim of a violent crime at the hands of someone holding a gun, but statistics are everywhere and point to all sorts of correlations...but as we know and sickeningly hear all the time, correlation does not equal causation.
Gun deaths aren't all murders, I think most are suicides, and quite frankly, as someone who was in fact suicidal at one point in their lives (even tried once and got extremely lucky as a younger man, or idiot as I now look at how ridiculous it was) those people won't be stopped by simply not having a gun, they can and only will be stopped by themselves or friends and family regardless of the tools available.
My 'nonsense'' comment was directed at politicians in the US, not you, I am truly sorry if that wasn't clear. Nonsense like implying that some how a government list of all gun owners will be created for the purpose of disarmament if we have a universal background check system in place to score easy political points, or by invoking the 2nd amendment to the constitution while ignoring many of its other, less convenient parts...or by grand standing about the need to make stricter changes and then dropping it after an election...
I am not for banning of tools at all, but I think there is some room for more strictly enforced measures on who can purchase weapons and how they can be purchased is needed. But I do think those measures need to pass constitutional review. I love my guns, had to bring one out the other night but that is a completely different story and it was terrifying, but would give them up in a heart beat if someone else could guarantee my family's safety...but no one can do that.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
No problems. As I said in my preface, it was a little unclear, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt based on how credible you typically are on this forum.
I wish to speak to two aspects of your post- not that the rest isn't worthy of reflecting on!
Firstly, any specific areas will not experience the success they seek by enacting gun control measures when neighbouring areas provide access. This must make sense to those presenting the 'Chicago' argument. To this point I would also add that success can only be measured in the long term: immediate success is impossible given the current proliferation and abundance of weapons already within the public. Employing strategies such as a 'buy back program' would assist with expediting the desired results. Restricting ammunition sales to those with registered guns and eliminating ammunition sales for illegal weapons would help as well.
Secondly, the lack of opportunity for impoverished kids growing into adults is one of the underlying causal factors that I think your country needs to address. Just as Mexican youth can join a cartel and enjoy a lifestyle that is simply beyond them, despair or a lack of hope drives a significant portion of your youth sector to a life in crime. Some might argue that a kid should feel good about a life behind a fast food counter, but think how such a prospect might be a source of frustration and drive one to become angry. It's really too late for the adults who have become a by-product of your country's inequitable system, but I feel your country has a chance to 'curb the bleeding' (slowly at first and incrementally faster) by providing more to those that need it. I know your country typically hates anything that looks socialist, but my pea brain sees no other way.
Poverty is the main driving factor behind violence in all societies, gun control laws will help somewhat, but moreso with accidental shootings, young kids getting hold of weapons etc than with violent crime. America's big problem is a social one.