The American mentality is a big part of it. As soon as you say "gun laws" or "gun reform" or "assault weapons ban" about 200 million mouth breathers all shout "DER CANT TAYK AWR GUNZ, S'MY CONSTATOOSHNAL RYYTE!" instead of actually listening to proprosals, offering constructive input, or even understanding why we want/need reform. People want to pretend that just because it's in the constitution, it's untouchable. TImes changes, purposes change, meanings change, function & availability change. Everything fucking changes. The reasons the 2nd Amendment were originally written are (mostly) irrelevant & unnecessary today. I invite everyone who doesn't want change in gun laws... next time you all go to the doctor, have surgery, etc, please make sure to ask your doctor to give you medical advice or perform procedures from the 18th fucking century. Instead of reaching for some Tylenol when you have a headache, call your doctor and schedule a lobotomy instead. You wouldn't. And rightfully so, because it's completely fucking archaic. Just like the 2nd fucking Amendment. So stop hiding behind that god damn skirt (and I'm not saying anyone here in particular is, just talking in general) and do something so our elementary schools, movie theaters, churches, mosques, shopping centers, etc, etc, etc don't get shot the fuck up on a god damn daily basis.
What really is the American fascination with guns anyway? We NEED to get away from that. (And before anyone retorts, yes, we really do.) And "it's my right" isn't a valid answer. It's your right to protest, right to vote, but I don't see hundreds of million Americans so vehemently expressing how awesome it is do those things nor fighting to keep them. No we do just the exact polar fucking opposite of those; we try to suppress them. I want to know exactly what is the mentality, what is the desire, the amazement, what is at the CORE of wanting to many god damn guns? What makes people feel so threatened if suddenly guns didn't exist?
Because you think that gun owners are this dumb is a good thing. Keep thinking they are all country bumpkins and uneducated hicks.
That'll go far in conversations of "gun control", oh wait, no it won't because you think people are too stupid to do that...
Man, i need to get off this thread...
Yeah, but it was a hell of a straw man, you’ve gotta give him that, lol
The American mentality is a big part of it. As soon as you say "gun laws" or "gun reform" or "assault weapons ban" about 200 million mouth breathers all shout "DER CANT TAYK AWR GUNZ, S'MY CONSTATOOSHNAL RYYTE!" instead of actually listening to proprosals, offering constructive input, or even understanding why we want/need reform. People want to pretend that just because it's in the constitution, it's untouchable. TImes changes, purposes change, meanings change, function & availability change. Everything fucking changes. The reasons the 2nd Amendment were originally written are (mostly) irrelevant & unnecessary today. I invite everyone who doesn't want change in gun laws... next time you all go to the doctor, have surgery, etc, please make sure to ask your doctor to give you medical advice or perform procedures from the 18th fucking century. Instead of reaching for some Tylenol when you have a headache, call your doctor and schedule a lobotomy instead. You wouldn't. And rightfully so, because it's completely fucking archaic. Just like the 2nd fucking Amendment. So stop hiding behind that god damn skirt (and I'm not saying anyone here in particular is, just talking in general) and do something so our elementary schools, movie theaters, churches, mosques, shopping centers, etc, etc, etc don't get shot the fuck up on a god damn daily basis.
What really is the American fascination with guns anyway? We NEED to get away from that. (And before anyone retorts, yes, we really do.) And "it's my right" isn't a valid answer. It's your right to protest, right to vote, but I don't see hundreds of million Americans so vehemently expressing how awesome it is do those things nor fighting to keep them. No we do just the exact polar fucking opposite of those; we try to suppress them. I want to know exactly what is the mentality, what is the desire, the amazement, what is at the CORE of wanting to many god damn guns? What makes people feel so threatened if suddenly guns didn't exist?
Absolutely - I will forever believe that the #1 reason behind America's gun problems, by far, is that gun culture you're talking about. Regulations are good and all, but none of them are ever ultimately going to do much good (mainly because they'll never be enacted, lol) as long as that gun obsession persists.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data. Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.
How many thus far this year are due to "gang activity?" A "small dent" in the data is a start and worth aiming for. But maybe not.
The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data. Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.
How many thus far this year are due to "gang activity?" A "small dent" in the data is a start and worth aiming for. But maybe not.
Woot. Okay, my 1% was exaggerated. None of those links were related to anything I said however. Domestic violence and accidents account for roughly 1000 gun deaths a year. So why do we focus on that and ignore the other 30,000+ ? My comment was about storage of ammo and how it is to prevent accidents and heated debates, not sure how all those links fit in. Locking ammo up separately won't prevent any of those accidents. SO now we're down to just focusing on about 500-600 out of the 30,000+ deaths. And not that 500-600 isn't worth considering, but my point was why continue to ignore much bigger factors? You didnt address that. Locking them up separately doesn't seem like it would prevent the domestic heated argument either for reasons already discussed. Woot
The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data. Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.
A small dent?
No, reducing the opportunity for access to a loaded firearm within a few seconds when an argument heats up, whether "domestic" or otherwise, would not be a small dent, it would be a large chunk. Gang-related gun homicides are estimated to be between 15-30% of gun homicides; they are not the majority. And preventing gun suicides by making it harder to access guns in the home is much more significant.
Wait, 15-30% could also be considered a “large chunk”, right?
Shhhhh don’t talk about that.
Why not? Because upon discussing it shows that the argument doesn't have much merit?
Sure, 15-30% would be a large chunk, but it's by no means the majority, which was implied by the argument that anything but gang violence would only be a "small dent".
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data. Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.
A small dent?
No, reducing the opportunity for access to a loaded firearm within a few seconds when an argument heats up, whether "domestic" or otherwise, would not be a small dent, it would be a large chunk. Gang-related gun homicides are estimated to be between 15-30% of gun homicides; they are not the majority. And preventing gun suicides by making it harder to access guns in the home is much more significant.
Domestic violence deaths are reported at about 600 a year, compared to over 30,000 gun deaths. That is not my definition of a huge dent. My point was why make laws designed to solve (literally) 2% of the problem and not find laws that impact a much larger portion? Out of the 2 responses my comment spawned that was never answered.
The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data. Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.
A small dent?
No, reducing the opportunity for access to a loaded firearm within a few seconds when an argument heats up, whether "domestic" or otherwise, would not be a small dent, it would be a large chunk. Gang-related gun homicides are estimated to be between 15-30% of gun homicides; they are not the majority. And preventing gun suicides by making it harder to access guns in the home is much more significant.
Wait, 15-30% could also be considered a “large chunk”, right?
Shhhhh don’t talk about that.
Why not? Because upon discussing it shows that the argument doesn't have much merit?
Sure, 15-30% would be a large chunk, but it's by no means the majority, which was implied by the argument that anything but gang violence would only be a "small dent".
Well, in that respect, having to store ammo separate from guns would probably not target the “majority” of homicides either...probably even a lesser chunk than gang violence.
The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data. Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.
How many thus far this year are due to "gang activity?" A "small dent" in the data is a start and worth aiming for. But maybe not.
Woot. Okay, my 1% was exaggerated. None of those links were related to anything I said however. Domestic violence and accidents account for roughly 1000 gun deaths a year. So why do we focus on that and ignore the other 30,000+ ? My comment was about storage of ammo and how it is to prevent accidents and heated debates, not sure how all those links fit in. Locking ammo up separately won't prevent any of those accidents. SO now we're down to just focusing on about 500-600 out of the 30,000+ deaths. And not that 500-600 isn't worth considering, but my point was why continue to ignore much bigger factors? You didnt address that. Locking them up separately doesn't seem like it would prevent the domestic heated argument either for reasons already discussed. Woot
Care to clarify your comment about how we don't focus on gang violence or consider the "family structure?" Who does that refer to? Source of your 1,000 number for domestic violence and accidents total?
And I wasn't commenting solely, or really at all, on your comments about separate storage of guns and ammo and folks having time to cool down. 40,000+ a year, no big deal, nothing can be done. I get where the pro-gun crowd is coming from. Nothing can be done. its a blip. Its minor. Nothing we can do will reduce the numbers, so why try. I get it.
The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data. Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.
A small dent?
No, reducing the opportunity for access to a loaded firearm within a few seconds when an argument heats up, whether "domestic" or otherwise, would not be a small dent, it would be a large chunk. Gang-related gun homicides are estimated to be between 15-30% of gun homicides; they are not the majority. And preventing gun suicides by making it harder to access guns in the home is much more significant.
Domestic violence deaths are reported at about 600 a year, compared to over 30,000 gun deaths. That is not my definition of a huge dent. My point was why make laws designed to solve (literally) 2% of the problem and not find laws that impact a much larger portion? Out of the 2 responses my comment spawned that was never answered.
Make laws that solve all kinds of problems. If you can get the law or regulation that only covered 2% of the problem through and hope to help 2% of potential victims, that you absolutely do that. At the same time you also work on getting through all the various laws and regulations that cover the other 98% of the problem. It is strange that you seem to think it has to be one or the other. Also, sometimes, laws and regulations that only apply to the few end up really influencing the creation of more laws and regulations that end up influencing the many.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data. Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.
A small dent?
No, reducing the opportunity for access to a loaded firearm within a few seconds when an argument heats up, whether "domestic" or otherwise, would not be a small dent, it would be a large chunk. Gang-related gun homicides are estimated to be between 15-30% of gun homicides; they are not the majority. And preventing gun suicides by making it harder to access guns in the home is much more significant.
Domestic violence deaths are reported at about 600 a year, compared to over 30,000 gun deaths. That is not my definition of a huge dent. My point was why make laws designed to solve (literally) 2% of the problem and not find laws that impact a much larger portion? Out of the 2 responses my comment spawned that was never answered.
Make laws that solve all kinds of problems. If you can get the law or regulation that only covered 2% of the problem through and hope to help 2% of potential victims, that you absolutely do that. At the same time you also work on getting through all the various laws and regulations that cover the other 98% of the problem. It is strange that you seem to think it has to be one or the other. Also, sometimes, laws and regulations that only apply to the few end up really influencing the creation of more laws and regulations that end up influencing the many.
Too many laws are what everyone is afraid of. When will it stop?
The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data. Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.
A small dent?
No, reducing the opportunity for access to a loaded firearm within a few seconds when an argument heats up, whether "domestic" or otherwise, would not be a small dent, it would be a large chunk. Gang-related gun homicides are estimated to be between 15-30% of gun homicides; they are not the majority. And preventing gun suicides by making it harder to access guns in the home is much more significant.
Domestic violence deaths are reported at about 600 a year, compared to over 30,000 gun deaths. That is not my definition of a huge dent. My point was why make laws designed to solve (literally) 2% of the problem and not find laws that impact a much larger portion? Out of the 2 responses my comment spawned that was never answered.
Make laws that solve all kinds of problems. If you can get the law or regulation that only covered 2% of the problem through and hope to help 2% of potential victims, that you absolutely do that. At the same time you also work on getting through all the various laws and regulations that cover the other 98% of the problem. It is strange that you seem to think it has to be one or the other. Also, sometimes, laws and regulations that only apply to the few end up really influencing the creation of more laws and regulations that end up influencing the many.
I actually think that was the point Mcgruff was getting at. Stop with the ineffective “feel good” laws that only target a small portion of gun issues and focus on things like background checks, training requirements, etc that hit the spectrum a little more broadly. How many other ways does gang proliferation increase gun homicides other than just direct homicides? Gangs are responding for a large number of illegal weapons on the street which leads to gun accidents and on and on.
The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data. Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.
How many thus far this year are due to "gang activity?" A "small dent" in the data is a start and worth aiming for. But maybe not.
Woot. Okay, my 1% was exaggerated. None of those links were related to anything I said however. Domestic violence and accidents account for roughly 1000 gun deaths a year. So why do we focus on that and ignore the other 30,000+ ? My comment was about storage of ammo and how it is to prevent accidents and heated debates, not sure how all those links fit in. Locking ammo up separately won't prevent any of those accidents. SO now we're down to just focusing on about 500-600 out of the 30,000+ deaths. And not that 500-600 isn't worth considering, but my point was why continue to ignore much bigger factors? You didnt address that. Locking them up separately doesn't seem like it would prevent the domestic heated argument either for reasons already discussed. Woot
Care to clarify your comment about how we don't focus on gang violence or consider the "family structure?" Who does that refer to? Source of your 1,000 number for domestic violence and accidents total?
And I wasn't commenting solely, or really at all, on your comments about separate storage of guns and ammo and folks having time to cool down. 40,000+ a year, no big deal, nothing can be done. I get where the pro-gun crowd is coming from. Nothing can be done. its a blip. Its minor. Nothing we can do will reduce the numbers, so why try. I get it.
Storing guns and ammo together has no impact on street violence. That is the topic that is being debated right now, and there is no reason to believe it would impact suicides, accidents, street violence. The only valuable argument was it would impact domestic violence. I disagree, but would admit there is at least some logic to that statement. Disagree because the time it takes to get to a gun safe, open it, load a gun, I don;t see moving to the next room or closet adding any meaningful amount of time to impact the situation.
Everyone knows violence is higher in broken homes and fatherless communities. No one wants to say it. Lets find ways to help single mothers, prevent teenage pregnancy to begin with that contributes to this. Reduce the cycle of poverty. All would have a bigger impact on gun violence than storing ammo in the closet next to the gun safe in a separate box.
I've said many times I'm for background checks, registration, no gunshow loopholes and many other forms. I just don't see the logic that I can't lock my ammo up in my gun safe.
The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data. Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.
A small dent?
No, reducing the opportunity for access to a loaded firearm within a few seconds when an argument heats up, whether "domestic" or otherwise, would not be a small dent, it would be a large chunk. Gang-related gun homicides are estimated to be between 15-30% of gun homicides; they are not the majority. And preventing gun suicides by making it harder to access guns in the home is much more significant.
Domestic violence deaths are reported at about 600 a year, compared to over 30,000 gun deaths. That is not my definition of a huge dent. My point was why make laws designed to solve (literally) 2% of the problem and not find laws that impact a much larger portion? Out of the 2 responses my comment spawned that was never answered.
Make laws that solve all kinds of problems. If you can get the law or regulation that only covered 2% of the problem through and hope to help 2% of potential victims, that you absolutely do that. At the same time you also work on getting through all the various laws and regulations that cover the other 98% of the problem. It is strange that you seem to think it has to be one or the other. Also, sometimes, laws and regulations that only apply to the few end up really influencing the creation of more laws and regulations that end up influencing the many.
Too many laws are what everyone is afraid of. When will it stop?
When the gun death and injury rates aren't completely out of control, I would assume.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I don't think Canada has too many rules, just that the ones we have are solid. I mean, would you let your kid own a car and no licence. and training. Why not the same for gun owners?
I don't think Canada has too many rules, just that the ones we have are solid. I mean, would you let your kid own a car and no licence. and training. Why not the same for gun owners?
I don’t think anyone is arguing those ideas. I like the idea of training. I can’t tell you how many idiots I ve seen at the range or on the field.
This is getting a bit silly. People say that no one needs quick access to a firearm and say that it is “fear” driving them to think someone will break into their house (some say they don’t even lock their doors). And then in the same breath people are “afraid” of a criminal breaking into someone’s house and stealing their guns and ammo that are stored together in a secure vault? Lol. Do we fear people breaking in or not???
I agree lol I’m glad to just not have anything to do with the tool that’s being debated here a tool to kill none the less, it has no bearing on my life at this juncture of my life , now when I decide to retire and move into the woods per say I would arm myself now living in suburbia LI I don’t need a weapon ..
This is getting a bit silly. People say that no one needs quick access to a firearm and say that it is “fear” driving them to think someone will break into their house (some say they don’t even lock their doors). And then in the same breath people are “afraid” of a criminal breaking into someone’s house and stealing their guns and ammo that are stored together in a secure vault? Lol. Do we fear people breaking in or not???
This is getting a bit silly. People say that no one needs quick access to a firearm and say that it is “fear” driving them to think someone will break into their house (some say they don’t even lock their doors). And then in the same breath people are “afraid” of a criminal breaking into someone’s house and stealing their guns and ammo that are stored together in a secure vault? Lol. Do we fear people breaking in or not???
Lol. Great point
No it's not. Almost all burglaries are undertaken when nobody is home. So the concern about guns being stolen is a realistic one, while the fear of being invaded while the homeowner is actually there so that they can defend themselves with a gun is not so much. But FWIW, I don't think keeping ammo separate from guns has anything to do with gun theft.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
This is getting a bit silly. People say that no one needs quick access to a firearm and say that it is “fear” driving them to think someone will break into their house (some say they don’t even lock their doors). And then in the same breath people are “afraid” of a criminal breaking into someone’s house and stealing their guns and ammo that are stored together in a secure vault? Lol. Do we fear people breaking in or not???
Lol. Great point
No it's not. Almost all burglaries are undertaken when nobody is home. So the concern about guns being stolen is a realistic one, while the fear of being invaded while the homeowner is actually there so that they can defend themselves with a gun is not so much. But FWIW, I don't think keeping ammo separate from guns has anything to do with gun theft.
That’s why you get a dog, people will rarely break into places with a dog barking at them. Those schizophrenia inducing cats won’t protect shit!
The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data. Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.
How many thus far this year are due to "gang activity?" A "small dent" in the data is a start and worth aiming for. But maybe not.
Woot. Okay, my 1% was exaggerated. None of those links were related to anything I said however. Domestic violence and accidents account for roughly 1000 gun deaths a year. So why do we focus on that and ignore the other 30,000+ ? My comment was about storage of ammo and how it is to prevent accidents and heated debates, not sure how all those links fit in. Locking ammo up separately won't prevent any of those accidents. SO now we're down to just focusing on about 500-600 out of the 30,000+ deaths. And not that 500-600 isn't worth considering, but my point was why continue to ignore much bigger factors? You didnt address that. Locking them up separately doesn't seem like it would prevent the domestic heated argument either for reasons already discussed. Woot
Care to clarify your comment about how we don't focus on gang violence or consider the "family structure?" Who does that refer to? Source of your 1,000 number for domestic violence and accidents total?
And I wasn't commenting solely, or really at all, on your comments about separate storage of guns and ammo and folks having time to cool down. 40,000+ a year, no big deal, nothing can be done. I get where the pro-gun crowd is coming from. Nothing can be done. its a blip. Its minor. Nothing we can do will reduce the numbers, so why try. I get it.
Storing guns and ammo together has no impact on street violence. That is the topic that is being debated right now, and there is no reason to believe it would impact suicides, accidents, street violence. The only valuable argument was it would impact domestic violence. I disagree, but would admit there is at least some logic to that statement. Disagree because the time it takes to get to a gun safe, open it, load a gun, I don;t see moving to the next room or closet adding any meaningful amount of time to impact the situation.
Everyone knows violence is higher in broken homes and fatherless communities. No one wants to say it. Lets find ways to help single mothers, prevent teenage pregnancy to begin with that contributes to this. Reduce the cycle of poverty. All would have a bigger impact on gun violence than storing ammo in the closet next to the gun safe in a separate box.
I've said many times I'm for background checks, registration, no gunshow loopholes and many other forms. I just don't see the logic that I can't lock my ammo up in my gun safe.
Why do you posit that only women are the victims of domestic violence? Do the innocent men, children and innocent bystanders count or are women the only victims of domestic violence in your thought process?
The American mentality is a big part of it. As soon as you say "gun laws" or "gun reform" or "assault weapons ban" about 200 million mouth breathers all shout "DER CANT TAYK AWR GUNZ, S'MY CONSTATOOSHNAL RYYTE!" instead of actually listening to proprosals, offering constructive input, or even understanding why we want/need reform. People want to pretend that just because it's in the constitution, it's untouchable. TImes changes, purposes change, meanings change, function & availability change. Everything fucking changes. The reasons the 2nd Amendment were originally written are (mostly) irrelevant & unnecessary today. I invite everyone who doesn't want change in gun laws... next time you all go to the doctor, have surgery, etc, please make sure to ask your doctor to give you medical advice or perform procedures from the 18th fucking century. Instead of reaching for some Tylenol when you have a headache, call your doctor and schedule a lobotomy instead. You wouldn't. And rightfully so, because it's completely fucking archaic. Just like the 2nd fucking Amendment. So stop hiding behind that god damn skirt (and I'm not saying anyone here in particular is, just talking in general) and do something so our elementary schools, movie theaters, churches, mosques, shopping centers, etc, etc, etc don't get shot the fuck up on a god damn daily basis.
What really is the American fascination with guns anyway? We NEED to get away from that. (And before anyone retorts, yes, we really do.) And "it's my right" isn't a valid answer. It's your right to protest, right to vote, but I don't see hundreds of million Americans so vehemently expressing how awesome it is do those things nor fighting to keep them. No we do just the exact polar fucking opposite of those; we try to suppress them. I want to know exactly what is the mentality, what is the desire, the amazement, what is at the CORE of wanting to many god damn guns? What makes people feel so threatened if suddenly guns didn't exist?
The founders thought owning firearms was so important that it was the sixth right they listed (behind the first five in the first amendment). Training? Sounds good. Registration? Zero problems with it. Background checks? Giddy up. Banning something, yeah no thanks. Because after you ban something then the question becomes, what is next? Oh yeah, senators from Hawaii: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/hawaii-democrats-want-us-congress-consider-repeal-second-amendment
Hawaii Democrats Want U.S. Congress to Consider Repeal of Second Amendment
A resolution introduced in the Hawaii Senate this week urges the U.S. Congress to "consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right."
The resolution also urges Congress to adopt a proposed constitutional amendment "to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms."
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2008 that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
The article continues on the web page I referenced.
You did 100% exactly what I asked not to. I need to know what you personally think. Pretend the 2nd Amendment never existed. Why are Americans so fascinated with guns? Why away are you so threatened if weapons were banned? Forget the Constitution, what’s at the core? Why do Americans jerk off every time they see a gun?
The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data. Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.
How many thus far this year are due to "gang activity?" A "small dent" in the data is a start and worth aiming for. But maybe not.
Woot. Okay, my 1% was exaggerated. None of those links were related to anything I said however. Domestic violence and accidents account for roughly 1000 gun deaths a year. So why do we focus on that and ignore the other 30,000+ ? My comment was about storage of ammo and how it is to prevent accidents and heated debates, not sure how all those links fit in. Locking ammo up separately won't prevent any of those accidents. SO now we're down to just focusing on about 500-600 out of the 30,000+ deaths. And not that 500-600 isn't worth considering, but my point was why continue to ignore much bigger factors? You didnt address that. Locking them up separately doesn't seem like it would prevent the domestic heated argument either for reasons already discussed. Woot
Care to clarify your comment about how we don't focus on gang violence or consider the "family structure?" Who does that refer to? Source of your 1,000 number for domestic violence and accidents total?
And I wasn't commenting solely, or really at all, on your comments about separate storage of guns and ammo and folks having time to cool down. 40,000+ a year, no big deal, nothing can be done. I get where the pro-gun crowd is coming from. Nothing can be done. its a blip. Its minor. Nothing we can do will reduce the numbers, so why try. I get it.
Storing guns and ammo together has no impact on street violence. That is the topic that is being debated right now, and there is no reason to believe it would impact suicides, accidents, street violence. The only valuable argument was it would impact domestic violence. I disagree, but would admit there is at least some logic to that statement. Disagree because the time it takes to get to a gun safe, open it, load a gun, I don;t see moving to the next room or closet adding any meaningful amount of time to impact the situation.
Everyone knows violence is higher in broken homes and fatherless communities. No one wants to say it. Lets find ways to help single mothers, prevent teenage pregnancy to begin with that contributes to this. Reduce the cycle of poverty. All would have a bigger impact on gun violence than storing ammo in the closet next to the gun safe in a separate box.
I've said many times I'm for background checks, registration, no gunshow loopholes and many other forms. I just don't see the logic that I can't lock my ammo up in my gun safe.
Why do you posit that only women are the victims of domestic violence? Do the innocent men, children and innocent bystanders count or are women the only victims of domestic violence in your thought process?
I have a cousin who is a retired cop, he has investigated plenty of instances of domestic violence toward men...it does happen, the statistics are not usually very accurate, because most men are too embarrassed to file charges, and some simply say just a "misunderstanding", even though the physical evidence suggests otherwise.
Domestic violence is as good a reason as any to keep ammo and guns separate...
The American mentality is a big part of it. As soon as you say "gun laws" or "gun reform" or "assault weapons ban" about 200 million mouth breathers all shout "DER CANT TAYK AWR GUNZ, S'MY CONSTATOOSHNAL RYYTE!" instead of actually listening to proprosals, offering constructive input, or even understanding why we want/need reform. People want to pretend that just because it's in the constitution, it's untouchable. TImes changes, purposes change, meanings change, function & availability change. Everything fucking changes. The reasons the 2nd Amendment were originally written are (mostly) irrelevant & unnecessary today. I invite everyone who doesn't want change in gun laws... next time you all go to the doctor, have surgery, etc, please make sure to ask your doctor to give you medical advice or perform procedures from the 18th fucking century. Instead of reaching for some Tylenol when you have a headache, call your doctor and schedule a lobotomy instead. You wouldn't. And rightfully so, because it's completely fucking archaic. Just like the 2nd fucking Amendment. So stop hiding behind that god damn skirt (and I'm not saying anyone here in particular is, just talking in general) and do something so our elementary schools, movie theaters, churches, mosques, shopping centers, etc, etc, etc don't get shot the fuck up on a god damn daily basis.
What really is the American fascination with guns anyway? We NEED to get away from that. (And before anyone retorts, yes, we really do.) And "it's my right" isn't a valid answer. It's your right to protest, right to vote, but I don't see hundreds of million Americans so vehemently expressing how awesome it is do those things nor fighting to keep them. No we do just the exact polar fucking opposite of those; we try to suppress them. I want to know exactly what is the mentality, what is the desire, the amazement, what is at the CORE of wanting to many god damn guns? What makes people feel so threatened if suddenly guns didn't exist?
Because you think that gun owners are this dumb is a good thing. Keep thinking they are all country bumpkins and uneducated hicks.
That'll go far in conversations of "gun control", oh wait, no it won't because you think people are too stupid to do that...
Man, i need to get off this thread...
So tell me what makes Americans so fascinated with guns? Why do we have this culture? Because the only defense anyone ever has is “2nd Amendment.” I want to know beyond the automatic, trained response.
The American mentality is a big part of it. As soon as you say "gun laws" or "gun reform" or "assault weapons ban" about 200 million mouth breathers all shout "DER CANT TAYK AWR GUNZ, S'MY CONSTATOOSHNAL RYYTE!" instead of actually listening to proprosals, offering constructive input, or even understanding why we want/need reform. People want to pretend that just because it's in the constitution, it's untouchable. TImes changes, purposes change, meanings change, function & availability change. Everything fucking changes. The reasons the 2nd Amendment were originally written are (mostly) irrelevant & unnecessary today. I invite everyone who doesn't want change in gun laws... next time you all go to the doctor, have surgery, etc, please make sure to ask your doctor to give you medical advice or perform procedures from the 18th fucking century. Instead of reaching for some Tylenol when you have a headache, call your doctor and schedule a lobotomy instead. You wouldn't. And rightfully so, because it's completely fucking archaic. Just like the 2nd fucking Amendment. So stop hiding behind that god damn skirt (and I'm not saying anyone here in particular is, just talking in general) and do something so our elementary schools, movie theaters, churches, mosques, shopping centers, etc, etc, etc don't get shot the fuck up on a god damn daily basis.
What really is the American fascination with guns anyway? We NEED to get away from that. (And before anyone retorts, yes, we really do.) And "it's my right" isn't a valid answer. It's your right to protest, right to vote, but I don't see hundreds of million Americans so vehemently expressing how awesome it is do those things nor fighting to keep them. No we do just the exact polar fucking opposite of those; we try to suppress them. I want to know exactly what is the mentality, what is the desire, the amazement, what is at the CORE of wanting to many god damn guns? What makes people feel so threatened if suddenly guns didn't exist?
The founders thought owning firearms was so important that it was the sixth right they listed (behind the first five in the first amendment). Training? Sounds good. Registration? Zero problems with it. Background checks? Giddy up. Banning something, yeah no thanks. Because after you ban something then the question becomes, what is next? Oh yeah, senators from Hawaii: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/hawaii-democrats-want-us-congress-consider-repeal-second-amendment
Hawaii Democrats Want U.S. Congress to Consider Repeal of Second Amendment
A resolution introduced in the Hawaii Senate this week urges the U.S. Congress to "consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right."
The resolution also urges Congress to adopt a proposed constitutional amendment "to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms."
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2008 that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
The article continues on the web page I referenced.
You did 100% exactly what I asked not to. I need to know what you personally think. Pretend the 2nd Amendment never existed. Why are Americans so fascinated with guns? Why away are you so threatened if weapons were banned? Forget the Constitution, what’s at the core? Why do Americans jerk off every time they see a gun?
The American mentality is a big part of it. As soon as you say "gun laws" or "gun reform" or "assault weapons ban" about 200 million mouth breathers all shout "DER CANT TAYK AWR GUNZ, S'MY CONSTATOOSHNAL RYYTE!" instead of actually listening to proprosals, offering constructive input, or even understanding why we want/need reform. People want to pretend that just because it's in the constitution, it's untouchable. TImes changes, purposes change, meanings change, function & availability change. Everything fucking changes. The reasons the 2nd Amendment were originally written are (mostly) irrelevant & unnecessary today. I invite everyone who doesn't want change in gun laws... next time you all go to the doctor, have surgery, etc, please make sure to ask your doctor to give you medical advice or perform procedures from the 18th fucking century. Instead of reaching for some Tylenol when you have a headache, call your doctor and schedule a lobotomy instead. You wouldn't. And rightfully so, because it's completely fucking archaic. Just like the 2nd fucking Amendment. So stop hiding behind that god damn skirt (and I'm not saying anyone here in particular is, just talking in general) and do something so our elementary schools, movie theaters, churches, mosques, shopping centers, etc, etc, etc don't get shot the fuck up on a god damn daily basis.
What really is the American fascination with guns anyway? We NEED to get away from that. (And before anyone retorts, yes, we really do.) And "it's my right" isn't a valid answer. It's your right to protest, right to vote, but I don't see hundreds of million Americans so vehemently expressing how awesome it is do those things nor fighting to keep them. No we do just the exact polar fucking opposite of those; we try to suppress them. I want to know exactly what is the mentality, what is the desire, the amazement, what is at the CORE of wanting to many god damn guns? What makes people feel so threatened if suddenly guns didn't exist?
The founders thought owning firearms was so important that it was the sixth right they listed (behind the first five in the first amendment). Training? Sounds good. Registration? Zero problems with it. Background checks? Giddy up. Banning something, yeah no thanks. Because after you ban something then the question becomes, what is next? Oh yeah, senators from Hawaii: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/hawaii-democrats-want-us-congress-consider-repeal-second-amendment
Hawaii Democrats Want U.S. Congress to Consider Repeal of Second Amendment
A resolution introduced in the Hawaii Senate this week urges the U.S. Congress to "consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right."
The resolution also urges Congress to adopt a proposed constitutional amendment "to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms."
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2008 that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
The article continues on the web page I referenced.
You did 100% exactly what I asked not to. I need to know what you personally think. Pretend the 2nd Amendment never existed. Why are Americans so fascinated with guns? Why away are you so threatened if weapons were banned? Forget the Constitution, what’s at the core? Why do Americans jerk off every time they see a gun?
Just going on record saying that I have never jerked off to a gun...lol
The American mentality is a big part of it. As soon as you say "gun laws" or "gun reform" or "assault weapons ban" about 200 million mouth breathers all shout "DER CANT TAYK AWR GUNZ, S'MY CONSTATOOSHNAL RYYTE!" instead of actually listening to proprosals, offering constructive input, or even understanding why we want/need reform. People want to pretend that just because it's in the constitution, it's untouchable. TImes changes, purposes change, meanings change, function & availability change. Everything fucking changes. The reasons the 2nd Amendment were originally written are (mostly) irrelevant & unnecessary today. I invite everyone who doesn't want change in gun laws... next time you all go to the doctor, have surgery, etc, please make sure to ask your doctor to give you medical advice or perform procedures from the 18th fucking century. Instead of reaching for some Tylenol when you have a headache, call your doctor and schedule a lobotomy instead. You wouldn't. And rightfully so, because it's completely fucking archaic. Just like the 2nd fucking Amendment. So stop hiding behind that god damn skirt (and I'm not saying anyone here in particular is, just talking in general) and do something so our elementary schools, movie theaters, churches, mosques, shopping centers, etc, etc, etc don't get shot the fuck up on a god damn daily basis.
What really is the American fascination with guns anyway? We NEED to get away from that. (And before anyone retorts, yes, we really do.) And "it's my right" isn't a valid answer. It's your right to protest, right to vote, but I don't see hundreds of million Americans so vehemently expressing how awesome it is do those things nor fighting to keep them. No we do just the exact polar fucking opposite of those; we try to suppress them. I want to know exactly what is the mentality, what is the desire, the amazement, what is at the CORE of wanting to many god damn guns? What makes people feel so threatened if suddenly guns didn't exist?
The founders thought owning firearms was so important that it was the sixth right they listed (behind the first five in the first amendment). Training? Sounds good. Registration? Zero problems with it. Background checks? Giddy up. Banning something, yeah no thanks. Because after you ban something then the question becomes, what is next? Oh yeah, senators from Hawaii: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/hawaii-democrats-want-us-congress-consider-repeal-second-amendment
Hawaii Democrats Want U.S. Congress to Consider Repeal of Second Amendment
A resolution introduced in the Hawaii Senate this week urges the U.S. Congress to "consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right."
The resolution also urges Congress to adopt a proposed constitutional amendment "to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms."
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2008 that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
The article continues on the web page I referenced.
You did 100% exactly what I asked not to. I need to know what you personally think. Pretend the 2nd Amendment never existed. Why are Americans so fascinated with guns? Why away are you so threatened if weapons were banned? Forget the Constitution, what’s at the core? Why do Americans jerk off every time they see a gun?
It gives them power !
Didn’t you say that you would get one if you moved out of the city yesterday? Why?
The problem with many of the laws people propose are suggest are like McGruff said, the "feel good" laws but don;t do anything. We could eliminate every assault rifle in the country, prevent every accident, eliminate 100% of the shootings resulting from a heated argument and that would just place a small dent in the data. Laws never seem to target the root of the problem. We don't want to address gang problems are even admit a connection between family status and violence. Reporters have gotten fired for suggesting that. We want to start with what causes 1% of the problem and turn a blind eye to the 99%. We should do it the other way around.
How many thus far this year are due to "gang activity?" A "small dent" in the data is a start and worth aiming for. But maybe not.
Woot. Okay, my 1% was exaggerated. None of those links were related to anything I said however. Domestic violence and accidents account for roughly 1000 gun deaths a year. So why do we focus on that and ignore the other 30,000+ ? My comment was about storage of ammo and how it is to prevent accidents and heated debates, not sure how all those links fit in. Locking ammo up separately won't prevent any of those accidents. SO now we're down to just focusing on about 500-600 out of the 30,000+ deaths. And not that 500-600 isn't worth considering, but my point was why continue to ignore much bigger factors? You didnt address that. Locking them up separately doesn't seem like it would prevent the domestic heated argument either for reasons already discussed. Woot
Care to clarify your comment about how we don't focus on gang violence or consider the "family structure?" Who does that refer to? Source of your 1,000 number for domestic violence and accidents total?
And I wasn't commenting solely, or really at all, on your comments about separate storage of guns and ammo and folks having time to cool down. 40,000+ a year, no big deal, nothing can be done. I get where the pro-gun crowd is coming from. Nothing can be done. its a blip. Its minor. Nothing we can do will reduce the numbers, so why try. I get it.
Storing guns and ammo together has no impact on street violence. That is the topic that is being debated right now, and there is no reason to believe it would impact suicides, accidents, street violence. The only valuable argument was it would impact domestic violence. I disagree, but would admit there is at least some logic to that statement. Disagree because the time it takes to get to a gun safe, open it, load a gun, I don;t see moving to the next room or closet adding any meaningful amount of time to impact the situation.
Everyone knows violence is higher in broken homes and fatherless communities. No one wants to say it. Lets find ways to help single mothers, prevent teenage pregnancy to begin with that contributes to this. Reduce the cycle of poverty. All would have a bigger impact on gun violence than storing ammo in the closet next to the gun safe in a separate box.
I've said many times I'm for background checks, registration, no gunshow loopholes and many other forms. I just don't see the logic that I can't lock my ammo up in my gun safe.
Why do you posit that only women are the victims of domestic violence? Do the innocent men, children and innocent bystanders count or are women the only victims of domestic violence in your thought process?
I have a cousin who is a retired cop, he has investigated plenty of instances of domestic violence toward men...it does happen, the statistics are not usually very accurate, because most men are too embarrassed to file charges, and some simply say just a "misunderstanding", even though the physical evidence suggests otherwise.
Domestic violence is as good a reason as any to keep ammo and guns separate...
Add suicide to that list And Children accidentally shooting other children
Comments
Strange. I consider that when someone takes the life of other people and then kills themself it is significant. Strange that you would scoff at that.
Okay, my 1% was exaggerated. None of those links were related to anything I said however. Domestic violence and accidents account for roughly 1000 gun deaths a year. So why do we focus on that and ignore the other 30,000+ ?
My comment was about storage of ammo and how it is to prevent accidents and heated debates, not sure how all those links fit in. Locking ammo up separately won't prevent any of those accidents. SO now we're down to just focusing on about 500-600 out of the 30,000+ deaths. And not that 500-600 isn't worth considering, but my point was why continue to ignore much bigger factors? You didnt address that.
Locking them up separately doesn't seem like it would prevent the domestic heated argument either for reasons already discussed.
Woot
Why not? Because upon discussing it shows that the argument doesn't have much merit?
Sure, 15-30% would be a large chunk, but it's by no means the majority, which was implied by the argument that anything but gang violence would only be a "small dent".
Care to clarify your comment about how we don't focus on gang violence or consider the "family structure?" Who does that refer to? Source of your 1,000 number for domestic violence and accidents total?
And I wasn't commenting solely, or really at all, on your comments about separate storage of guns and ammo and folks having time to cool down. 40,000+ a year, no big deal, nothing can be done. I get where the pro-gun crowd is coming from. Nothing can be done. its a blip. Its minor. Nothing we can do will reduce the numbers, so why try. I get it.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
In an average month, 50 American women are shot to death by intimate partners,4
50 per month = 600 a year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
puts accidental shooting at about 500.
Storing guns and ammo together has no impact on street violence. That is the topic that is being debated right now, and there is no reason to believe it would impact suicides, accidents, street violence. The only valuable argument was it would impact domestic violence. I disagree, but would admit there is at least some logic to that statement. Disagree because the time it takes to get to a gun safe, open it, load a gun, I don;t see moving to the next room or closet adding any meaningful amount of time to impact the situation.
Everyone knows violence is higher in broken homes and fatherless communities. No one wants to say it. Lets find ways to help single mothers, prevent teenage pregnancy to begin with that contributes to this. Reduce the cycle of poverty. All would have a bigger impact on gun violence than storing ammo in the closet next to the gun safe in a separate box.
I've said many times I'm for background checks, registration, no gunshow loopholes and many other forms. I just don't see the logic that I can't lock my ammo up in my gun safe.
count or are women the only victims of domestic violence in your thought process?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Domestic violence is as good a reason as any to keep ammo and guns separate...
And Children accidentally shooting other children