America's Gun Violence

Thirty Bills Unpaid

"Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of destruction, mankind should be thinking about getting more use out of the weapons we already have."

(Jack Handy)

* I'm thinking Donald Trump comes as close as anyone to being the living embodiment of Jack Handy. He says some stuff that could have scrolled on SNL easily.

pjhawks

by the logic of the people who think it's ok to sell assault rifles i ask again why not sell tanks, hand grenades and hell why not surface to air missiles? by the logic of "it's the owners and not the weapon's fault for mass killings" why is ANY weapon not available for purchase?. I'm curious to hear the logic here.

and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.

cincybearcat

.

PJPOWER

pjhawks said:

by the logic of the people who think it's ok to sell assault rifles i ask again why not sell tanks, hand grenades and hell why not surface to air missiles? by the logic of "it's the owners and not the weapon's fault for mass killings" why is ANY weapon not available for purchase?. I'm curious to hear the logic here.

and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.

Meh, tanks and hand grenades would make the venison and pork inedible.
My main concern is that there are so many definitions of "assault rifles" that it makes one's head spin. Most of these asshats trying to spin legislation have no idea what they are talking about in regards to gun parts/function. my problem is more about the political term "assault rifle".

pjhawks

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

by the logic of the people who think it's ok to sell assault rifles i ask again why not sell tanks, hand grenades and hell why not surface to air missiles? by the logic of "it's the owners and not the weapon's fault for mass killings" why is ANY weapon not available for purchase?. I'm curious to hear the logic here.

and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.

Meh, tanks and hand grenades would make the venison and pork inedible.
My main concern is that there are so many definitions of "assault rifles" that it makes one's head spin. Most of these asshats trying to spin legislation have no idea what they are talking about in regards to gun parts/function. my problem is more about the political term "assault rifle".

that's a fair point in the underlined above.

that being said the question i posed was not answered. if the weapon is not at fault why is any weapon banned?

PJPOWER

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

by the logic of the people who think it's ok to sell assault rifles i ask again why not sell tanks, hand grenades and hell why not surface to air missiles? by the logic of "it's the owners and not the weapon's fault for mass killings" why is ANY weapon not available for purchase?. I'm curious to hear the logic here.

and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.

Meh, tanks and hand grenades would make the venison and pork inedible.
My main concern is that there are so many definitions of "assault rifles" that it makes one's head spin. Most of these asshats trying to spin legislation have no idea what they are talking about in regards to gun parts/function. my problem is more about the political term "assault rifle".

that's a fair point in the underlined above.

that being said the question i posed was not answered. if the weapon is not at fault why is any weapon banned?

I think that's maybe the slippery slope pendulum; where to draw the line on both sides of the argument. There are plenty out there that would say that civilians should have access to any and everything and on the other saying that there should be no access to anything. Personally I feel that a certain amount of force in the hands of the public is a good thing for a country to have. I realize others disagree with that statement, but people knowing they risk being shot back at has surely been a factor in the heads if *some* seeking to do harm to others.

pjhawks

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

by the logic of the people who think it's ok to sell assault rifles i ask again why not sell tanks, hand grenades and hell why not surface to air missiles? by the logic of "it's the owners and not the weapon's fault for mass killings" why is ANY weapon not available for purchase?. I'm curious to hear the logic here.

and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.

Meh, tanks and hand grenades would make the venison and pork inedible.
My main concern is that there are so many definitions of "assault rifles" that it makes one's head spin. Most of these asshats trying to spin legislation have no idea what they are talking about in regards to gun parts/function. my problem is more about the political term "assault rifle".

that's a fair point in the underlined above.

that being said the question i posed was not answered. if the weapon is not at fault why is any weapon banned?

I think that's maybe the slippery slope pendulum; where to draw the line on both sides of the argument. There are plenty out there that would say that civilians should have access to any and everything and on the other saying that there should be no access to anything. Personally I feel that a certain amount of force in the hands of the public is a good thing for a country to have. I realize others disagree with that statement, but people knowing they risk being shot back at has surely been a factor in the heads if *some* seeking to do harm to others.

i think people who think none should be legal are as crazy as the people who say all should be legal. there should and has to be a middle ground in my opinion. unfortunately it's one of those issues that is so divided there is very little useful dialogue at this time.

PJPOWER

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

by the logic of the people who think it's ok to sell assault rifles i ask again why not sell tanks, hand grenades and hell why not surface to air missiles? by the logic of "it's the owners and not the weapon's fault for mass killings" why is ANY weapon not available for purchase?. I'm curious to hear the logic here.

and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.

Meh, tanks and hand grenades would make the venison and pork inedible.
My main concern is that there are so many definitions of "assault rifles" that it makes one's head spin. Most of these asshats trying to spin legislation have no idea what they are talking about in regards to gun parts/function. my problem is more about the political term "assault rifle".

that's a fair point in the underlined above.

that being said the question i posed was not answered. if the weapon is not at fault why is any weapon banned?

I think that's maybe the slippery slope pendulum; where to draw the line on both sides of the argument. There are plenty out there that would say that civilians should have access to any and everything and on the other saying that there should be no access to anything. Personally I feel that a certain amount of force in the hands of the public is a good thing for a country to have. I realize others disagree with that statement, but people knowing they risk being shot back at has surely been a factor in the heads if *some* seeking to do harm to others.

i think people who think none should be legal are as crazy as the people who say all should be legal. there should and has to be a middle ground in my opinion. unfortunately it's one of those issues that is so divided there is very little useful dialogue at this time.

Can we go back to a time when there was no CNN, no FOX News, etc!?!? Make people fear that their guns are going to be taken away and get ratings. Make people fear that gun owners are crazy rednecks hell bent on destruction and get ratings. Fear Fear Fear

dudeman

pjhawks said:

by the logic of the people who think it's ok to sell assault rifles i ask again why not sell tanks, hand grenades and hell why not surface to air missiles? by the logic of "it's the owners and not the weapon's fault for mass killings" why is ANY weapon not available for purchase?. I'm curious to hear the logic here.

and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.

Statistically speaking, "assault rifles" are used in a very low number of crimes. More people are killed with bare hands and feet in the US annually.

That's why, I feel, some gun rights supporters think that banning "assault rifles" would affect more law-abiding citizens negatively while having little to no reduction in violent crime.

"Assault rifles" aren't the problem. Handguns are used in the majority of gun deaths and the majority of those are suicides.

Take care of the people and they will kill themselves and each other less often.

dudeman

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

by the logic of the people who think it's ok to sell assault rifles i ask again why not sell tanks, hand grenades and hell why not surface to air missiles? by the logic of "it's the owners and not the weapon's fault for mass killings" why is ANY weapon not available for purchase?. I'm curious to hear the logic here.

and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.

Meh, tanks and hand grenades would make the venison and pork inedible.
My main concern is that there are so many definitions of "assault rifles" that it makes one's head spin. Most of these asshats trying to spin legislation have no idea what they are talking about in regards to gun parts/function. my problem is more about the political term "assault rifle".

that's a fair point in the underlined above.

that being said the question i posed was not answered. if the weapon is not at fault why is any weapon banned?

I think that's maybe the slippery slope pendulum; where to draw the line on both sides of the argument. There are plenty out there that would say that civilians should have access to any and everything and on the other saying that there should be no access to anything. Personally I feel that a certain amount of force in the hands of the public is a good thing for a country to have. I realize others disagree with that statement, but people knowing they risk being shot back at has surely been a factor in the heads if *some* seeking to do harm to others.

i think people who think none should be legal are as crazy as the people who say all should be legal. there should and has to be a middle ground in my opinion. unfortunately it's one of those issues that is so divided there is very little useful dialogue at this time.

Can we go back to a time when there was no CNN, no FOX News, etc!?!? Make people fear that their guns are going to be taken away and get ratings. Make people fear that gun owners are crazy rednecks hell bent on destruction and get ratings. Fear Fear Fear

Totally agree with this.

tempo_n_groove

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

by the logic of the people who think it's ok to sell assault rifles i ask again why not sell tanks, hand grenades and hell why not surface to air missiles? by the logic of "it's the owners and not the weapon's fault for mass killings" why is ANY weapon not available for purchase?. I'm curious to hear the logic here.

and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.

Meh, tanks and hand grenades would make the venison and pork inedible.
My main concern is that there are so many definitions of "assault rifles" that it makes one's head spin. Most of these asshats trying to spin legislation have no idea what they are talking about in regards to gun parts/function. my problem is more about the political term "assault rifle".

that's a fair point in the underlined above.

that being said the question i posed was not answered. if the weapon is not at fault why is any weapon banned?

I think that's maybe the slippery slope pendulum; where to draw the line on both sides of the argument. There are plenty out there that would say that civilians should have access to any and everything and on the other saying that there should be no access to anything. Personally I feel that a certain amount of force in the hands of the public is a good thing for a country to have. I realize others disagree with that statement, but people knowing they risk being shot back at has surely been a factor in the heads if *some* seeking to do harm to others.

i think people who think none should be legal are as crazy as the people who say all should be legal. there should and has to be a middle ground in my opinion. unfortunately it's one of those issues that is so divided there is very little useful dialogue at this time.

Beautiful.

Cliffy6745

How about we go back to a time when 20 something kindergarteners don't get plowed down with a high powered gun in school?

dudeman

Cliffy6745 said:

How about we go back to a time when 20 something kindergarteners don't get plowed down with a high powered gun in school?

That would be great.

mcgruff10

So obviously I want ar 15 s and ak 47 s to stay. To my gun control friends, what laws need to be put in place in order for me to keep them?
Registration?
Training?
Multiple back ground checks?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mcgruff10 said:

So obviously I want ar 15 s and ak 47 s to stay. To my gun control friends, what laws need to be put in place in order for me to keep them?
Registration?
Training?
Multiple back ground checks?

To be fair, existing guns should be grandfathered. A buy back program would be helpful.

I would think, off the top of my head, the gun needs to be registered though. If people check out then everything is fine. License for ammunition.

If people with registered guns such as yours step out of bounds, then the weapons should be seized.

This would be part of meaningful legislation. There's no immediate solution, but in 20 years... your country wouldn't be missing 20 years of assault rifles introduced into society from the Big 5 Sporting Good sales.

mcgruff10

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

So obviously I want ar 15 s and ak 47 s to stay. To my gun control friends, what laws need to be put in place in order for me to keep them?
Registration?
Training?
Multiple back ground checks?

To be fair, existing guns should be grandfathered. A buy back program would be helpful.

I would think, off the top of my head, the gun needs to be registered though. If people check out then everything is fine. License for ammunition.

If people with registered guns such as yours step out of bounds, then the weapons should be seized.

This would be part of meaningful legislation. There's no immediate solution, but in 20 years... your country wouldn't be missing 20 years of assault rifles introduced into society from the Big 5 Sporting Good sales.

i'm liking it bud. we have all these laws in nj already but it would make a lot of sense to get them nationwide. another reason you should have chose the pizza/pork roll capital of the world over hawaii.

tempo_n_groove

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

So obviously I want ar 15 s and ak 47 s to stay. To my gun control friends, what laws need to be put in place in order for me to keep them?
Registration?
Training?
Multiple back ground checks?

To be fair, existing guns should be grandfathered. A buy back program would be helpful.

I would think, off the top of my head, the gun needs to be registered though. If people check out then everything is fine. License for ammunition.

If people with registered guns such as yours step out of bounds, then the weapons should be seized.

This would be part of meaningful legislation. There's no immediate solution, but in 20 years... your country wouldn't be missing 20 years of assault rifles introduced into society from the Big 5 Sporting Good sales.

Sounds great just make it national so that ALL the states agree and you can take your weapons with you if you move.

Make that happen and I'm all for it.

mickeyrat

tempo_n_groove said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

So obviously I want ar 15 s and ak 47 s to stay. To my gun control friends, what laws need to be put in place in order for me to keep them?
Registration?
Training?
Multiple back ground checks?

To be fair, existing guns should be grandfathered. A buy back program would be helpful.

I would think, off the top of my head, the gun needs to be registered though. If people check out then everything is fine. License for ammunition.

If people with registered guns such as yours step out of bounds, then the weapons should be seized.

This would be part of meaningful legislation. There's no immediate solution, but in 20 years... your country wouldn't be missing 20 years of assault rifles introduced into society from the Big 5 Sporting Good sales.

Sounds great just make it national so that ALL the states agree and you can take your weapons with you if you move.

Make that happen and I'm all for it.

Annual or bi-annual training required. Proficiency testinng as well. Licensing and rregistrattion of all weapons. Reporting of all sales, including peer to peer. Liability insurance required. The parents or guardians who store where kids have access and someone dies, you lose your freedom. No questions asked.

I want the people willing to sell off the books without a care as to who is buying beyond if they have the cash, to be held accountable for those actions. Unless or until you can show another viable way to accomplish this single thing then , I dont know that any reduction in the violence will be possible.

Would be a good start if a lot of the emotion on both sides can be tempered to allow for real common sense , universally beneficial ideas to take root. All while the preservation of the second is maintained as it was intended when written.

NRA MUST follow the wishes of its paid members. Then ones they purport to represent. It seems to me that isnt the case anymore.

mcgruff10

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

So obviously I want ar 15 s and ak 47 s to stay. To my gun control friends, what laws need to be put in place in order for me to keep them?
Registration?
Training?
Multiple back ground checks?

To be fair, existing guns should be grandfathered. A buy back program would be helpful.

I would think, off the top of my head, the gun needs to be registered though. If people check out then everything is fine. License for ammunition.

If people with registered guns such as yours step out of bounds, then the weapons should be seized.

This would be part of meaningful legislation. There's no immediate solution, but in 20 years... your country wouldn't be missing 20 years of assault rifles introduced into society from the Big 5 Sporting Good sales.

Sounds great just make it national so that ALL the states agree and you can take your weapons with you if you move.

Make that happen and I'm all for it.

Annual or bi-annual training required. Proficiency testinng as well. Licensing and rregistrattion of all weapons. Reporting of all sales, including peer to peer. Liability insurance required. The parents or guardians who store where kids have access and someone dies, you lose your freedom. No questions asked.

I want the people willing to sell off the books without a care as to who is buying beyond if they have the cash, to be held accountable for those actions. Unless or until you can show another viable way to accomplish this single thing then , I dont know that any reduction in the violence will be possible.

Would be a good start if a lot of the emotion on both sides can be tempered to allow for real common sense , universally beneficial ideas to take root. All while the preservation of the second is maintained as it was intended when written.

NRA MUST follow the wishes of its paid members. Then ones they purport to represent. It seems to me that isnt the case anymore.

I like it all except the annual or biannual training. with the amount of people owning firearms I think this would be an impossible task. But I do like the idea of an initial firearms test of some sort. Kind of like a hunter education course with a live firearms test and then a written test.

tempo_n_groove

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mcgruff10 said:

So obviously I want ar 15 s and ak 47 s to stay. To my gun control friends, what laws need to be put in place in order for me to keep them?
Registration?
Training?
Multiple back ground checks?

To be fair, existing guns should be grandfathered. A buy back program would be helpful.

I would think, off the top of my head, the gun needs to be registered though. If people check out then everything is fine. License for ammunition.

If people with registered guns such as yours step out of bounds, then the weapons should be seized.

This would be part of meaningful legislation. There's no immediate solution, but in 20 years... your country wouldn't be missing 20 years of assault rifles introduced into society from the Big 5 Sporting Good sales.

Sounds great just make it national so that ALL the states agree and you can take your weapons with you if you move.

Make that happen and I'm all for it.

Annual or bi-annual training required. Proficiency testinng as well. Licensing and rregistrattion of all weapons. Reporting of all sales, including peer to peer. Liability insurance required. The parents or guardians who store where kids have access and someone dies, you lose your freedom. No questions asked.

I want the people willing to sell off the books without a care as to who is buying beyond if they have the cash, to be held accountable for those actions. Unless or until you can show another viable way to accomplish this single thing then , I dont know that any reduction in the violence will be possible.

Would be a good start if a lot of the emotion on both sides can be tempered to allow for real common sense , universally beneficial ideas to take root. All while the preservation of the second is maintained as it was intended when written.

NRA MUST follow the wishes of its paid members. Then ones they purport to represent. It seems to me that isnt the case anymore.

A little too much. Tried to give you an inch and you want a mile... No dice.