America's Gun Violence

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ha, ha! Hilarious! Another responsible gun owner. Remind me not to go to church.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/11/17/a-man-accidentally-shot-himself-and-his-wife-at-a-church-shortly-after-a-discussion-on-shootings/

I am curious. Why do you refer to essentially every situation as a "responsible gun owner?" It seems like you're mocking the idea of someone owning a gun and being responsible? No one said 100% of gun owners are responsible, and most are for regulations that would help determine which ones are t and prevent them from possessing a gun.
do you not believe that people can, and almost always do take proper precautions with their firearms? What is the number, something like 300 million guns in this country or something? And a couple thousand accidental shootings. 
Not that we can't or shouldn't try to do better, but how is there no such thing as a responsible gun owner?

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ha, ha! Hilarious! Another responsible gun owner. Remind me not to go to church.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/11/17/a-man-accidentally-shot-himself-and-his-wife-at-a-church-shortly-after-a-discussion-on-shootings/

I am curious. Why do you refer to essentially every situation as a "responsible gun owner?" It seems like you're mocking the idea of someone owning a gun and being responsible? No one said 100% of gun owners are responsible, and most are for regulations that would help determine which ones are t and prevent them from possessing a gun.
do you not believe that people can, and almost always do take proper precautions with their firearms? What is the number, something like 300 million guns in this country or something? And a couple thousand accidental shootings. 
Not that we can't or shouldn't try to do better, but how is there no such thing as a responsible gun owner?

Because that’s how the NRA and you gun owners always present yourselves and when “accidents” happen, there seem to be little to no consequences of said “accidents.” I’ve posted a few news stories of people who were alleged to have been “responsible” gun owners killing and maiming innocent people minding there own business. I’ve also posted statistics about “responsible” gun owners who when they reported their guns stolen, didn’t even know the last place they had left it. Happens everyday in the good ‘ol US of A. So yea, responsible gun owner until you’re not.
I didn’t say “there’s no such thing as a responsible gun owner.” Thanks for muddying the waters. Just like I’ve never called for a ban of guns or gun shows but you seem to use those terms together quite frequently.

Halifax2TheMax

I’ve never claimed 100% of gun owners are irresponsible either, for the record.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

It's more than fair to say irresponsible gun owners emerge from the pool of responsible gun owners.

Just as it's fair to say every gun used to kill something worked exactly as it was designed. Guns were not developed to aerate fields or as paper hole punches. They are outstanding tools for killing things.

HesCalledDyer

226 years since the 2nd Amendment was ratified and not a single tyrannical government overthrown by “responsible,” private, gun-owning US citizens.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

HesCalledDyer said:

226 years since the 2nd Amendment was ratified and not a single tyrannical government overthrown by “responsible,” private, gun-owning US citizens.

As I mentioned earlier... the people that trot this out there would be more credible if they suggested they were armed in the event of an 'invaders from out of space' event.

Halifax2TheMax

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HesCalledDyer said:

226 years since the 2nd Amendment was ratified and not a single tyrannical government overthrown by “responsible,” private, gun-owning US citizens.

As I mentioned earlier... the people that trot this out there would be more credible if they suggested they were armed in the event of an 'invaders from out of space' event.

Or zombie apocalypse.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Halifax2TheMax said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HesCalledDyer said:

226 years since the 2nd Amendment was ratified and not a single tyrannical government overthrown by “responsible,” private, gun-owning US citizens.

As I mentioned earlier... the people that trot this out there would be more credible if they suggested they were armed in the event of an 'invaders from out of space' event.

Or zombie apocalypse.

Rubber bands bouncing off zombies' foreheads don't do the trick. 

CM189191

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ha, ha! Hilarious! Another responsible gun owner. Remind me not to go to church.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/11/17/a-man-accidentally-shot-himself-and-his-wife-at-a-church-shortly-after-a-discussion-on-shootings/

I am curious. Why do you refer to essentially every situation as a "responsible gun owner?" It seems like you're mocking the idea of someone owning a gun and being responsible? No one said 100% of gun owners are responsible, and most are for regulations that would help determine which ones are t and prevent them from possessing a gun.
do you not believe that people can, and almost always do take proper precautions with their firearms? What is the number, something like 300 million guns in this country or something? And a couple thousand accidental shootings. 
Not that we can't or shouldn't try to do better, but how is there no such thing as a responsible gun owner?

Because that’s how the NRA and you gun owners always present yourselves and when “accidents” happen, there seem to be little to no consequences of said “accidents.” I’ve posted a few news stories of people who were alleged to have been “responsible” gun owners killing and maiming innocent people minding there own business. I’ve also posted statistics about “responsible” gun owners who when they reported their guns stolen, didn’t even know the last place they had left it. Happens everyday in the good ‘ol US of A. So yea, responsible gun owner until you’re not.
I didn’t say “there’s no such thing as a responsible gun owner.” Thanks for muddying the waters. Just like I’ve never called for a ban of guns or gun shows but you seem to use those terms together quite frequently.

The correct nomenclature is "well-regulated militia man".

Halifax2TheMax

CM189191 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ha, ha! Hilarious! Another responsible gun owner. Remind me not to go to church.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/11/17/a-man-accidentally-shot-himself-and-his-wife-at-a-church-shortly-after-a-discussion-on-shootings/

I am curious. Why do you refer to essentially every situation as a "responsible gun owner?" It seems like you're mocking the idea of someone owning a gun and being responsible? No one said 100% of gun owners are responsible, and most are for regulations that would help determine which ones are t and prevent them from possessing a gun.
do you not believe that people can, and almost always do take proper precautions with their firearms? What is the number, something like 300 million guns in this country or something? And a couple thousand accidental shootings. 
Not that we can't or shouldn't try to do better, but how is there no such thing as a responsible gun owner?

Because that’s how the NRA and you gun owners always present yourselves and when “accidents” happen, there seem to be little to no consequences of said “accidents.” I’ve posted a few news stories of people who were alleged to have been “responsible” gun owners killing and maiming innocent people minding there own business. I’ve also posted statistics about “responsible” gun owners who when they reported their guns stolen, didn’t even know the last place they had left it. Happens everyday in the good ‘ol US of A. So yea, responsible gun owner until you’re not.
I didn’t say “there’s no such thing as a responsible gun owner.” Thanks for muddying the waters. Just like I’ve never called for a ban of guns or gun shows but you seem to use those terms together quite frequently.

The correct nomenclature is "well-regulated militia man".

See Cheney, DICK.

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ha, ha! Hilarious! Another responsible gun owner. Remind me not to go to church.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/11/17/a-man-accidentally-shot-himself-and-his-wife-at-a-church-shortly-after-a-discussion-on-shootings/

I am curious. Why do you refer to essentially every situation as a "responsible gun owner?" It seems like you're mocking the idea of someone owning a gun and being responsible? No one said 100% of gun owners are responsible, and most are for regulations that would help determine which ones are t and prevent them from possessing a gun.
do you not believe that people can, and almost always do take proper precautions with their firearms? What is the number, something like 300 million guns in this country or something? And a couple thousand accidental shootings. 
Not that we can't or shouldn't try to do better, but how is there no such thing as a responsible gun owner?

Because that’s how the NRA and you gun owners always present yourselves and when “accidents” happen, there seem to be little to no consequences of said “accidents.” I’ve posted a few news stories of people who were alleged to have been “responsible” gun owners killing and maiming innocent people minding there own business. I’ve also posted statistics about “responsible” gun owners who when they reported their guns stolen, didn’t even know the last place they had left it. Happens everyday in the good ‘ol US of A. So yea, responsible gun owner until you’re not.
I didn’t say “there’s no such thing as a responsible gun owner.” Thanks for muddying the waters. Just like I’ve never called for a ban of guns or gun shows but you seem to use those terms together quite frequently.

I didn't say you said there's so such thing. I said the way you respond makes me believe that. Even this response makes me think you still believe that by lumping all gun owners together and citing s handful of accidents. Instead of saying "some gun owners...." you being with "the NRA and you gun owners...."
i wasn't trying to muddy the waters, actually just the opposite. I told you the impression I have from your reeponses and asked you to clarify so I don't have the wrong impression.
and for the record, there are plenty of consequences when one is found negligent.

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ha, ha! Hilarious! Another responsible gun owner. Remind me not to go to church.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/11/17/a-man-accidentally-shot-himself-and-his-wife-at-a-church-shortly-after-a-discussion-on-shootings/

I am curious. Why do you refer to essentially every situation as a "responsible gun owner?" It seems like you're mocking the idea of someone owning a gun and being responsible? No one said 100% of gun owners are responsible, and most are for regulations that would help determine which ones are t and prevent them from possessing a gun.
do you not believe that people can, and almost always do take proper precautions with their firearms? What is the number, something like 300 million guns in this country or something? And a couple thousand accidental shootings. 
Not that we can't or shouldn't try to do better, but how is there no such thing as a responsible gun owner?

Because that’s how the NRA and you gun owners always present yourselves and when “accidents” happen, there seem to be little to no consequences of said “accidents.” I’ve posted a few news stories of people who were alleged to have been “responsible” gun owners killing and maiming innocent people minding there own business. I’ve also posted statistics about “responsible” gun owners who when they reported their guns stolen, didn’t even know the last place they had left it. Happens everyday in the good ‘ol US of A. So yea, responsible gun owner until you’re not.
I didn’t say “there’s no such thing as a responsible gun owner.” Thanks for muddying the waters. Just like I’ve never called for a ban of guns or gun shows but you seem to use those terms together quite frequently.

I didn't say you said there's so such thing. I said the way you respond makes me believe that. Even this response makes me think you still believe that by lumping all gun owners together and citing s handful of accidents. Instead of saying "some gun owners...." you being with "the NRA and you gun owners...."
i wasn't trying to muddy the waters, actually just the opposite. I told you the impression I have from your reeponses and asked you to clarify so I don't have the wrong impression.
and for the record, there are plenty of consequences when one is found negligent.

Guess you don’t like my answer to your question?
 

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ha, ha! Hilarious! Another responsible gun owner. Remind me not to go to church.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/11/17/a-man-accidentally-shot-himself-and-his-wife-at-a-church-shortly-after-a-discussion-on-shootings/

I am curious. Why do you refer to essentially every situation as a "responsible gun owner?" It seems like you're mocking the idea of someone owning a gun and being responsible? No one said 100% of gun owners are responsible, and most are for regulations that would help determine which ones are t and prevent them from possessing a gun.
do you not believe that people can, and almost always do take proper precautions with their firearms? What is the number, something like 300 million guns in this country or something? And a couple thousand accidental shootings. 
Not that we can't or shouldn't try to do better, but how is there no such thing as a responsible gun owner?

Because that’s how the NRA and you gun owners always present yourselves and when “accidents” happen, there seem to be little to no consequences of said “accidents.” I’ve posted a few news stories of people who were alleged to have been “responsible” gun owners killing and maiming innocent people minding there own business. I’ve also posted statistics about “responsible” gun owners who when they reported their guns stolen, didn’t even know the last place they had left it. Happens everyday in the good ‘ol US of A. So yea, responsible gun owner until you’re not.
I didn’t say “there’s no such thing as a responsible gun owner.” Thanks for muddying the waters. Just like I’ve never called for a ban of guns or gun shows but you seem to use those terms together quite frequently.

I didn't say you said there's so such thing. I said the way you respond makes me believe that. Even this response makes me think you still believe that by lumping all gun owners together and citing s handful of accidents. Instead of saying "some gun owners...." you being with "the NRA and you gun owners...."
i wasn't trying to muddy the waters, actually just the opposite. I told you the impression I have from your reeponses and asked you to clarify so I don't have the wrong impression.
and for the record, there are plenty of consequences when one is found negligent.

Guess you don’t like my answer to your question?
 

Not that, just that I still don't know your answer. You start out by what seems like addressing all gun owners, but then accuse me of muddying the waters. I just wanted clarifications of you think all gun owners are irresponsible or not. My impression is that you seem to think so, but I don't really know. That's why I asked.   .

stuckinline

"I am tired of living in a cycle where we choose our own trauma and violence over solutions. I am furious at politicians who accept money and then cower before the gun lobby. I am furious that a few loudmouthed interest groups force the rest of us to raise generations of children in fear. I am furious that we do not have adequate mental health services for people in need. I am furious that we are not demanding more of our politicians and more of ourselves. I am tired of treating white male domestic-abusers who massacre people as some kind of unsolvable problem. I can only believe that for now at least, we are a country who keeps loving our guns more than we love our children."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/18/opinions/guns-children-taylor-opinion/index.html

polaris_x

it's always worth repeating ... the NRA and the gun lobby is not the problem as it relates to these mass shootings ... lobbyists are part of another systemic problem in the US ...

the problem, again is, when you live in a country that totally believes that violence is an acceptable response to conflict and that the lives of people come secondary to self-interest - this is what you get ...

a nation that spreads hate and suffering all over the planet will inevitably breed at home ... you can't show a nipple on a movie to kids but you can sure show people getting blown to smithereens ...

Go Beavers

polaris_x said:

it's always worth repeating ... the NRA and the gun lobby is not the problem as it relates to these mass shootings ... lobbyists are part of another systemic problem in the US ...

the problem, again is, when you live in a country that totally believes that violence is an acceptable response to conflict and that the lives of people come secondary to self-interest - this is what you get ...

a nation that spreads hate and suffering all over the planet will inevitably breed at home ... you can't show a nipple on a movie to kids but you can sure show people getting blown to smithereens ...

other countries also believe violence is an acceptable response. It’s just harder to get a gun there. 

HughFreakingDillon

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists?  that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war.  Big difference.  
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

no one is banning all guns. ONCE AGAIN, NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BANNING ALL GUNS. but to your point, when drunk driving became something of an epidemic, the legal system answered in kind:

-lower blood alcohol legal limits
-stricter penalties for driving under the influence
-court ordered installation of breathalyzer-triggered ignition systems for repeat offenders
-public awareness campaigns up the ying yang of the dangers of drinking and driving
-and the big one: LICENSING REQUIREMENTS WITH COMPETENCY TESTING FROM THE OUTSET

so if you want to compare guns to cars, sure, let's do that. we can do that all day. 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

HughFreakingDillon said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists?  that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war.  Big difference.  
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

no one is banning all guns. ONCE AGAIN, NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BANNING ALL GUNS. but to your point, when drunk driving became something of an epidemic, the legal system answered in kind:

-lower blood alcohol legal limits
-stricter penalties for driving under the influence
-court ordered installation of breathalyzer-triggered ignition systems for repeat offenders
-public awareness campaigns up the ying yang of the dangers of drinking and driving
-and the big one: LICENSING REQUIREMENTS WITH COMPETENCY TESTING FROM THE OUTSET

so if you want to compare guns to cars, sure, let's do that. we can do that all day. 

Not only that...

Laws have been developed where the servers can be charged in the event someone becomes overly intoxicated and causes harm- they have an inherent responsibility to serve responsibly.

I haven't heard of too many gun dealers getting charged for selling irresponsibly.

mace1229

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists?  that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war.  Big difference.  
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

no one is banning all guns. ONCE AGAIN, NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BANNING ALL GUNS. but to your point, when drunk driving became something of an epidemic, the legal system answered in kind:

-lower blood alcohol legal limits
-stricter penalties for driving under the influence
-court ordered installation of breathalyzer-triggered ignition systems for repeat offenders
-public awareness campaigns up the ying yang of the dangers of drinking and driving
-and the big one: LICENSING REQUIREMENTS WITH COMPETENCY TESTING FROM THE OUTSET

so if you want to compare guns to cars, sure, let's do that. we can do that all day. 

Not only that...

Laws have been developed where the servers can be charged in the event someone becomes overly intoxicated and causes harm- they have an inherent responsibility to serve responsibly.

I haven't heard of too many gun dealers getting charged for selling irresponsibly.

What would constitute selling irresponsibly?
ibwoukd never agree that anyone who sold guns legally should gave any consequences if that person chose to use the gun in a crime. If they went around laws or didn't complete a required background check or something of that nature, then yes I would agree. And there are already stiff penalties for that.
ive also said before, and most seem to agree, always require a background check.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists?  that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war.  Big difference.  
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

no one is banning all guns. ONCE AGAIN, NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BANNING ALL GUNS. but to your point, when drunk driving became something of an epidemic, the legal system answered in kind:

-lower blood alcohol legal limits
-stricter penalties for driving under the influence
-court ordered installation of breathalyzer-triggered ignition systems for repeat offenders
-public awareness campaigns up the ying yang of the dangers of drinking and driving
-and the big one: LICENSING REQUIREMENTS WITH COMPETENCY TESTING FROM THE OUTSET

so if you want to compare guns to cars, sure, let's do that. we can do that all day. 

Not only that...

Laws have been developed where the servers can be charged in the event someone becomes overly intoxicated and causes harm- they have an inherent responsibility to serve responsibly.

I haven't heard of too many gun dealers getting charged for selling irresponsibly.

What would constitute selling irresponsibly?
ibwoukd never agree that anyone who sold guns legally should gave any consequences if that person chose to use the gun in a crime. If they went around laws or didn't complete a required background check or something of that nature, then yes I would agree. And there are already stiff penalties for that.
ive also said before, and most seem to agree, always require a background check.

Didn't Eric Harris get one of his guns on-line?

Let's not pretend current laws protect society. They protect the gun industry.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which issues Federal Firearms Licenses, is forbidden from inspecting the 104,000 licensed gun dealers more than once a year. Notorious gun-law violators, known as dirty dealers, are well-protected by this rule.

More than 100 gun shows now take place every weekend in armories and flea markets across the nation, attended by up to 5 million people a year. These are almost entirely unregulated marketplaces, where unlicensed dealers are not required to perform background checks.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/how-they-got-the-guns-19990610