America's Gun Violence
Comments
-
Halifax2TheMax said:
Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?RYME said:mace1229 said:
That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.Halifax2TheMax said:Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.
Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in.
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want.
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?
Mace 1229,
You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
What I don't get is some of the opposition. Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
Gee Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people. Arrogance is not a plus.
Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.0 -
unsung said:
How is that working in Afghanistan? How did it work in Vietnam? Stupid to even bring up nukes, like the govt would use one at home.Gern Blansten said:
The "tyrannical government" argument is old and ridiculous.RYME said:
I can multitask.CM189191 said:RYME said:
https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/people/indian-killer-andrew-jackson-deserves-top-spot-on-list-of-worst-us-presidents/CM189191 said:unsung said:
Some States already do, Illinois being one, Chicago is just getting worse. Guns can’t be blamed, that is just a cop-out. Nothing will change until people value life. How do we get that done?Gern Blansten said:
So who best to regulate that other than the state? Issue state licenses for gun owners that reflect basic competency.unsung said:
It used to be part of school curriculum. Bring gun safety classes back, totally agree.
If run through the DMV you wouldn't have much more admin cost since the brick and mortar already exists.
Yes, that's obviously the most reasonable explanation. Other countries just value life more than the US does.
Fun fact: The Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery
There is literally a direct line from the 2nd Amendment to devaluation of human life.
Read about the original founding days of the Democrat party. Above
That is wrong sir the second amendment was not to ratify slavery, rather it was a put in place to allow the citizenry to be able to fight back against a tyrannical government. Please read what the second amendment was actually for.
https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html
Neither of the links you provide appear to be relevant to your point.
Also, your point is wrong.
The second amendment was to give the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms, so that they could fight back against a tyrannical government if need be. The Second Amendment had nothing to do with preserving slavery. That fun fact listed above is simply wrong and was made up.
I mentioned Andrew Jackson simply because he was the founder of the Democrat Party, a big-time slave owner and a big-time Indian killer.
He should never have been put on the $20 bill. Just ask any Native American what they think of him, and any African Americans who know the true history about slavery, who was for it and who was against it at the time, and who implemented it.
Back then the TG would come at you with similar weapons. Now the TG has tanks...tactical nukes...drones, etc.
Give that argument up. Your pussy ass AR-15 isn't going to help you if the TG comes at you.
Right. The current situation in the US bears so much relationship to that of Afghanistan that of course it's a valid argument for continuing the status quo.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
why am i not shocked you didn't answer his question. you never do. you just complain about everyone else's responses.RYME said:Halifax2TheMax said:
Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?RYME said:mace1229 said:
That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.Halifax2TheMax said:Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.
Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in.
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want.
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?
Mace 1229,
You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
What I don't get is some of the opposition. Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
Gee Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people. Arrogance is not a plus.
Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
they don't need nukes to fuck up the citizens. do you honestly believe the citizens can take the government?unsung said:
How is that working in Afghanistan? How did it work in Vietnam? Stupid to even bring up nukes, like the govt would use one at home.Gern Blansten said:
The "tyrannical government" argument is old and ridiculous.RYME said:
I can multitask.CM189191 said:RYME said:
https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/people/indian-killer-andrew-jackson-deserves-top-spot-on-list-of-worst-us-presidents/CM189191 said:unsung said:
Some States already do, Illinois being one, Chicago is just getting worse. Guns can’t be blamed, that is just a cop-out. Nothing will change until people value life. How do we get that done?Gern Blansten said:
So who best to regulate that other than the state? Issue state licenses for gun owners that reflect basic competency.unsung said:
It used to be part of school curriculum. Bring gun safety classes back, totally agree.
If run through the DMV you wouldn't have much more admin cost since the brick and mortar already exists.
Yes, that's obviously the most reasonable explanation. Other countries just value life more than the US does.
Fun fact: The Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery
There is literally a direct line from the 2nd Amendment to devaluation of human life.
Read about the original founding days of the Democrat party. Above
That is wrong sir the second amendment was not to ratify slavery, rather it was a put in place to allow the citizenry to be able to fight back against a tyrannical government. Please read what the second amendment was actually for.
https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html
Neither of the links you provide appear to be relevant to your point.
Also, your point is wrong.
The second amendment was to give the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms, so that they could fight back against a tyrannical government if need be. The Second Amendment had nothing to do with preserving slavery. That fun fact listed above is simply wrong and was made up.
I mentioned Andrew Jackson simply because he was the founder of the Democrat Party, a big-time slave owner and a big-time Indian killer.
He should never have been put on the $20 bill. Just ask any Native American what they think of him, and any African Americans who know the true history about slavery, who was for it and who was against it at the time, and who implemented it.
Back then the TG would come at you with similar weapons. Now the TG has tanks...tactical nukes...drones, etc.
Give that argument up. Your pussy ass AR-15 isn't going to help you if the TG comes at you.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
i took your post as comparing the two as well, not just halifax. well, not comparing, it seemed more of a deflection.mace1229 said:
Yeah, I've come to the conclusion some just don't want to have a rational conversation about guns. I didn't compare gun deaths to smoking, I don't fear a ban, but keeps bringing it up multiple times that I have for some reason.RYME said:mace1229 said:
That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.Halifax2TheMax said:Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.
Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in.
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want.
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?
Mace 1229,
You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
What I don't get is some of the opposition. Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
I've never said it is too late or too early to talk about gun control. I was on here the day after the vegas shooting talking about it.
Its amusing at this point how he keeps bringing those up over and over and hasn't answered a single one of my questions.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
and that isn't at all what he was asking.RYME said:
Gee Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people. Arrogance is not a plus.
Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Well.... Since you askedunsung said:
How is that working in Afghanistan? How did it work in Vietnam? Stupid to even bring up nukes, like the govt would use one at home.Gern Blansten said:
The "tyrannical government" argument is old and ridiculous.RYME said:
I can multitask.CM189191 said:RYME said:
https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/people/indian-killer-andrew-jackson-deserves-top-spot-on-list-of-worst-us-presidents/CM189191 said:unsung said:
Some States already do, Illinois being one, Chicago is just getting worse. Guns can’t be blamed, that is just a cop-out. Nothing will change until people value life. How do we get that done?Gern Blansten said:
So who best to regulate that other than the state? Issue state licenses for gun owners that reflect basic competency.unsung said:
It used to be part of school curriculum. Bring gun safety classes back, totally agree.
If run through the DMV you wouldn't have much more admin cost since the brick and mortar already exists.
Yes, that's obviously the most reasonable explanation. Other countries just value life more than the US does.
Fun fact: The Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery
There is literally a direct line from the 2nd Amendment to devaluation of human life.
Read about the original founding days of the Democrat party. Above
That is wrong sir the second amendment was not to ratify slavery, rather it was a put in place to allow the citizenry to be able to fight back against a tyrannical government. Please read what the second amendment was actually for.
https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html
Neither of the links you provide appear to be relevant to your point.
Also, your point is wrong.
The second amendment was to give the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms, so that they could fight back against a tyrannical government if need be. The Second Amendment had nothing to do with preserving slavery. That fun fact listed above is simply wrong and was made up.
I mentioned Andrew Jackson simply because he was the founder of the Democrat Party, a big-time slave owner and a big-time Indian killer.
He should never have been put on the $20 bill. Just ask any Native American what they think of him, and any African Americans who know the true history about slavery, who was for it and who was against it at the time, and who implemented it.
Back then the TG would come at you with similar weapons. Now the TG has tanks...tactical nukes...drones, etc.
Give that argument up. Your pussy ass AR-15 isn't going to help you if the TG comes at you.
Afghanistan now has a high gun ownership per capita. And a high rate of gun deaths.
Conversely, Vietnam has low gun ownership and low gun death rate per capita.
See how that works?0 -
This might be an opportune time to consider practicing what you preachRYME said:Halifax2TheMax said:
Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?RYME said:mace1229 said:
That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.Halifax2TheMax said:Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.
Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in.
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want.
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?
Mace 1229,
You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
What I don't get is some of the opposition. Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
Gee Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people. Arrogance is not a plus.
Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
I'm not sure how it could be taken that way. I was asked if my opinion on gun control recently change. Part of my response was that not recently, but maybe 5-10 years ago and with several members of my family in law enforcement guns have been a part of our family life. And I hear that argument often about what kills more than guns.HughFreakingDillon said:
i took your post as comparing the two as well, not just halifax. well, not comparing, it seemed more of a deflection.mace1229 said:
Yeah, I've come to the conclusion some just don't want to have a rational conversation about guns. I didn't compare gun deaths to smoking, I don't fear a ban, but keeps bringing it up multiple times that I have for some reason.RYME said:mace1229 said:
That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.Halifax2TheMax said:Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.
Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in.
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want.
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?
Mace 1229,
You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
What I don't get is some of the opposition. Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
I've never said it is too late or too early to talk about gun control. I was on here the day after the vegas shooting talking about it.
Its amusing at this point how he keeps bringing those up over and over and hasn't answered a single one of my questions.
i can assume we all agree that more people die from heart disease and other health issues than guns. That's not even debatable, right? My response to those arguments is that could be true, but why does that mean we ignore gun control until that becomes the #1 killer?
I don't see that as making a comparison between the two, I just shared the views my family have to give a perspective on my background and how I respond to it, and I imagine many on here would have the same response. That's not me linking the two together, or trying to deflect, just me being open when trying to answer a question abut my history on this topic.Post edited by mace1229 on0 -
With this kind of indifference, how can we expect anything to change?
Twitter Slams Donald Trump For Tweeting Condolences About The Wrong Mass Shooting - HuffPost https://apple.news/ApuwnoqWlS2KURDZLfhsYiA
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.RYME said:Halifax2TheMax said:
Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?RYME said:mace1229 said:
That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.Halifax2TheMax said:Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.
Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in.
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want.
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?
Mace 1229,
You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
What I don't get is some of the opposition. Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
Gee Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people. Arrogance is not a plus.
Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Well, I've yet to see the weapon of choice named in the latest shooting, but based on the "high capacity magazines" found at the scene and the description of a semi auto rifle, I bet it's some sort of AR-15.
C'mon people, either ban the damn thing or get rid of the high capacity mags! A fucking child could tell you what would help alleviate this issue. No citizen should be allowed to own such a type of weapon.
It's a hopeless situation...0 -
tbergs said:Well, I've yet to see the weapon of choice named in the latest shooting, but based on the "high capacity magazines" found at the scene and the description of a semi auto rifle, I bet it's some sort of AR-15.
C'mon people, either ban the damn thing or get rid of the high capacity mags! A fucking child could tell you what would help alleviate this issue. No citizen should be allowed to own such a type of weapon.
The AR15 sneak attack mass shooting is trending in the US.
To be fair, it would likely be trending in other countries as well. Americans aren't more inherently evil or 'messed up' than, well, to use my own country... Canadians.
It's just that we don't have access to such weaponry so we can't kill people with the same degree of ease and shock factor. The US' complacency on the issue facilitates these murders. I wonder if they get another one today?"My brain's a good brain!"0 -
I ask this respectfully. What do you mean if I'm armed, white male, maybe you do?Halifax2TheMax said:
If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.RYME said:Halifax2TheMax said:
Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?RYME said:mace1229 said:
That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.Halifax2TheMax said:Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.
Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in.
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want.
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?
Mace 1229,
You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
What I don't get is some of the opposition. Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
Gee Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people. Arrogance is not a plus.
Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.
0 -
But he always seemed so nice, he went to the same church as me.RYME said:
I ask this respectfully. What do you mean if I'm armed, white male, maybe you do?Halifax2TheMax said:
If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.RYME said:Halifax2TheMax said:
Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?RYME said:mace1229 said:
That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.Halifax2TheMax said:Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.
Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in.
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want.
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?
Mace 1229,
You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
What I don't get is some of the opposition. Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
Gee Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people. Arrogance is not a plus.
Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.
0 -
sorry, just the way it was written, or the way I read it, I thought you were speaking in first person. but it's clear now.mace1229 said:
I'm not sure how it could be taken that way. I was asked if my opinion on gun control recently change. Part of my response was that not recently, but maybe 5-10 years ago and with several members of my family in law enforcement guns have been a part of our family life. And I hear that argument often about what kills more than guns.HughFreakingDillon said:
i took your post as comparing the two as well, not just halifax. well, not comparing, it seemed more of a deflection.mace1229 said:
Yeah, I've come to the conclusion some just don't want to have a rational conversation about guns. I didn't compare gun deaths to smoking, I don't fear a ban, but keeps bringing it up multiple times that I have for some reason.RYME said:mace1229 said:
That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.Halifax2TheMax said:Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.
Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in.
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want.
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?
Mace 1229,
You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
What I don't get is some of the opposition. Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
I've never said it is too late or too early to talk about gun control. I was on here the day after the vegas shooting talking about it.
Its amusing at this point how he keeps bringing those up over and over and hasn't answered a single one of my questions.
i can assume we all agree that more people die from heart disease and other health issues than guns. That's not even debatable, right? My response to those arguments is that could be true, but why does that mean we ignore gun control until that becomes the #1 killer?
I don't see that as making a comparison between the two, I just shared the views my family have to give a perspective on my background and how I respond to it, and I imagine many on here would have the same response. That's not me linking the two together, or trying to deflect, just me being open when trying to answer a question abut my history on this topic.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
the vast majority of mass shooters are (obviously) armed white males.RYME said:
I ask this respectfully. What do you mean if I'm armed, white male, maybe you do?Halifax2TheMax said:
If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.RYME said:Halifax2TheMax said:
Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?RYME said:mace1229 said:
That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.Halifax2TheMax said:Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.
Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in.
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want.
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?
Mace 1229,
You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
What I don't get is some of the opposition. Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
Gee Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people. Arrogance is not a plus.
Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.
By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
I'd like an AR-15 and some chicken mcnuggets ...
Nah, we don't need any regulation ...Be Excellent To Each OtherParty On, Dudes!0 -
So, I'm a WMA, responsible law-abiding citizen who owns guns. Are you suggesting that Society needs to be a leery of people like me? I'm a white male American gun owner. So you think I am a potential Mass shooter?HughFreakingDillon said:
the vast majority of mass shooters are (obviously) armed white males.RYME said:
I ask this respectfully. What do you mean if I'm armed, white male, maybe you do?Halifax2TheMax said:
If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.RYME said:Halifax2TheMax said:
Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?RYME said:mace1229 said:
That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.Halifax2TheMax said:Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.
Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in.
What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want.
I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?
Mace 1229,
You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
What I don't get is some of the opposition. Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
Gee Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people. Arrogance is not a plus.
Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.
The concern Halifax stated above baffles me. I'm just trying to understand this.
His concern/worry is that somebody like myself a responsible mind my own business gun owner is going to have a bad day and go off on a shooting spree, and he doesn't want to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Is that the concern?0 -
Most of these Mass shooters have a long troubled history and they premeditate this shit for a long long time before they actually do it.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help