America's Gun Violence
Comments
-
so 30,000 deaths per year don't matter because of the "percentage".tempo_n_groove said:HughFreakingDillon said:
that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero.mcgruff10 said:
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.HughFreakingDillon said:
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?tempo_n_groove said:
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.HughFreakingDillon said:
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?PJPOWER said:
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.HughFreakingDillon said:
how did I contradict myself?PJPOWER said:
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.HughFreakingDillon said:
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.jeffbr said:
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.CM189191 said:PJPOWER said:
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.oftenreading said:"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws
us democracy is like the model T
ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it
now other countries do it better than we do
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.0.00857142857143% is the actual percentage of people that die from guns in the US...
my calculator doesn't even go to the decimal place where the rest of the world is.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Some Interesting Poll Data
77% of NRA members favor a waiting period for purchase of a handgun
82% of American support limiting the sales of military-style assault weapons
94% of police chiefs favor requiring a background check for all handgun sales.
Support for background checks on private gun sales, including gun shows:
- 87% of American
- 83% of gun owners
- 69% of NRA gun-owners
Support for limiting handgun sales to one per person per month:
- 65% of Americans
- 59% of gun owners
Support for registration of handguns
- 79% of Americans
- 69% of police chiefs
- 61% of gun owners
- 59% of NRA members
By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
If I came across as pretty awesome then thanks!tempo_n_groove said:
Now you sound like you're trying to speak like a Rhodes scholar...Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
It means you keep insisting to let the comment a vocal gun proponent thrust forward in defence of gun ownership... instead of allowing that comment to face its due response.tempo_n_groove said:
Sorry, I don't recall it. I left this thread for a bit. Re send it and I'll take a look.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I see you never commented on the piece I offered you regarding your suggestion that it is easier- or more appropriate- to dissect the mindset that leads to mass murder versus removing the tools of the trade.tempo_n_groove said:
I see it as an unnecessary tangent and deters from the real issue but it's an easy battle to pursue.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
It was a comment that warrants at least a bit of harping.tempo_n_groove said:
You going to keep harping on that? I'm over it because that won't help the argument.HughFreakingDillon said:
yes, he broke the law and slipped through the cracks. not all would. that is no excuse not to attempt it.PJPOWER said:The numbnut in CA, by law, would have most likely not carried out the murdering spree had law enforcement been doing their jobs. If certain current laws meant to prevent people like this from owning firearms are not even enforced, how are more laws going to help matters? For laws to work, enforcement is necessary...same situation with the shitbubble in TX. “Oh, but other countries bla bla bla”...The USA will not enforce similar legislation to Australia or Canada, it’s just not going to happen. Maybe those types of regulations would make a difference, but they are politically and legally untenable...that is why people are trying to think outside of the box. What else other than saying “but but other countries” can be done that IS legally and politically tenable?
On the bright side (if there is one in the CA spree), at least the elementary school seemed to do a pretty good job responding to this threat. The shitball was prevented from carrying out a massacre by diligence in the school staff.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/rancho-tehama-shooting-2/
australia's laws wouldn't apply to the US, but Canada's could. but again, gun laws aren't the sole issue here. apparently it's also largely due to a man and a woman getting married and the wife keeping her man happy.
If something is carelessly tosses out there in the hopes of promoting a viewpoint... people shouldn't be surprised when such utterings are challenged to the degree other people feel necessary.
Instead... you spend your energies basically saying, "C'mon gang. Yah. That comment never worked, but we're at least trying. So let that go. And the rest too. Until we finally get one that kinda works better okay?"
And I have no idea what this means as you seem to want to put words in my mouth that I would never say and make me sound like an ignorant hick...
The gun advocacy side is reaching at best. These 'reaches' need to face their due criticism lest some fool actually start to believe that nonsense. And if you think that's a stretch... your country voted for a confirmed lying, sex offender that ran on 'Let's Make America great Again' because many thought he'd make America great again.
I brought up something, a question, that I thought of myself. Apparently there is someone from the pro gun advocacy group(s) that proposed the same question?
It just sounds like you are trying to be smart and belittling about a comment that I made that I have already moved on about...
And I know you wanted to move on from it. That's the thing: other people didn't. It was rather egregious in its quality and it warranted a response more than just a roll of the eyes.
"My brain's a good brain!"0 -
Guess you don't care about the 22,500 then so is it safe to assume that you also don't care about the thousands maimed, injured and having their lives ruined because they were shot? Since Newtown, 112,500. No problem.tempo_n_groove said:HughFreakingDillon said:
that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero.mcgruff10 said:
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.HughFreakingDillon said:
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?tempo_n_groove said:
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.HughFreakingDillon said:
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?PJPOWER said:
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.HughFreakingDillon said:
how did I contradict myself?PJPOWER said:
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.HughFreakingDillon said:
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.jeffbr said:
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.CM189191 said:PJPOWER said:
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.oftenreading said:"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws
us democracy is like the model T
ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it
now other countries do it better than we do
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.0.00857142857143% is the actual percentage of people that die from guns in the US...
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
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 -
I have an honest question here. On decreasing the avoidable mortality rate, what do people here think should be the government's primary mandate?
1. Decrease the avoidable mortality rate (including all causes of avoidable death)
2. Decrease the self-affected avoidable mortality rate (i.e. personal health-driven avoidable death, such as smoking or poor eating habits)
3. Decrease the harmed-by-others avoidable mortality rate
My personal opinion is that it's a government's obligation to look at its general population, and decrease the mortality rate across the board, indiscriminately. This should then be prioritized by impact, for the simple fact that there are insufficient resource (and insufficient knowledge) to tackle all catalysts for avoidable mortality.'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
I still have no idea what you wanted an answer to in the first place. Ask me again what it was please.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
If I came across as pretty awesome then thanks!tempo_n_groove said:
Now you sound like you're trying to speak like a Rhodes scholar...Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
It means you keep insisting to let the comment a vocal gun proponent thrust forward in defence of gun ownership... instead of allowing that comment to face its due response.tempo_n_groove said:
Sorry, I don't recall it. I left this thread for a bit. Re send it and I'll take a look.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I see you never commented on the piece I offered you regarding your suggestion that it is easier- or more appropriate- to dissect the mindset that leads to mass murder versus removing the tools of the trade.tempo_n_groove said:
I see it as an unnecessary tangent and deters from the real issue but it's an easy battle to pursue.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
It was a comment that warrants at least a bit of harping.tempo_n_groove said:
You going to keep harping on that? I'm over it because that won't help the argument.HughFreakingDillon said:
yes, he broke the law and slipped through the cracks. not all would. that is no excuse not to attempt it.PJPOWER said:The numbnut in CA, by law, would have most likely not carried out the murdering spree had law enforcement been doing their jobs. If certain current laws meant to prevent people like this from owning firearms are not even enforced, how are more laws going to help matters? For laws to work, enforcement is necessary...same situation with the shitbubble in TX. “Oh, but other countries bla bla bla”...The USA will not enforce similar legislation to Australia or Canada, it’s just not going to happen. Maybe those types of regulations would make a difference, but they are politically and legally untenable...that is why people are trying to think outside of the box. What else other than saying “but but other countries” can be done that IS legally and politically tenable?
On the bright side (if there is one in the CA spree), at least the elementary school seemed to do a pretty good job responding to this threat. The shitball was prevented from carrying out a massacre by diligence in the school staff.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/rancho-tehama-shooting-2/
australia's laws wouldn't apply to the US, but Canada's could. but again, gun laws aren't the sole issue here. apparently it's also largely due to a man and a woman getting married and the wife keeping her man happy.
If something is carelessly tosses out there in the hopes of promoting a viewpoint... people shouldn't be surprised when such utterings are challenged to the degree other people feel necessary.
Instead... you spend your energies basically saying, "C'mon gang. Yah. That comment never worked, but we're at least trying. So let that go. And the rest too. Until we finally get one that kinda works better okay?"
And I have no idea what this means as you seem to want to put words in my mouth that I would never say and make me sound like an ignorant hick...
The gun advocacy side is reaching at best. These 'reaches' need to face their due criticism lest some fool actually start to believe that nonsense. And if you think that's a stretch... your country voted for a confirmed lying, sex offender that ran on 'Let's Make America great Again' because many thought he'd make America great again.
I brought up something, a question, that I thought of myself. Apparently there is someone from the pro gun advocacy group(s) that proposed the same question?
It just sounds like you are trying to be smart and belittling about a comment that I made that I have already moved on about...
And I know you wanted to move on from it. That's the thing: other people didn't. It was rather egregious in its quality and it warranted a response more than just a roll of the eyes.
Thanks
And no, you didn't come across as awesome, I said you were "trying to", lol.0 -
I knew these stupid attacks were coming...Halifax2TheMax said:
Guess you don't care about the 22,500 then so is it safe to assume that you also don't care about the thousands maimed, injured and having their lives ruined because they were shot? Since Newtown, 112,500. No problem.tempo_n_groove said:HughFreakingDillon said:
that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero.mcgruff10 said:
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.HughFreakingDillon said:
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?tempo_n_groove said:
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.HughFreakingDillon said:
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?PJPOWER said:
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.HughFreakingDillon said:
how did I contradict myself?PJPOWER said:
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.HughFreakingDillon said:
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.jeffbr said:
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.CM189191 said:PJPOWER said:
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.oftenreading said:"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws
us democracy is like the model T
ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it
now other countries do it better than we do
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.0.00857142857143% is the actual percentage of people that die from guns in the US...
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, I love when people do that.
0 -
I'm just playing along with you.tempo_n_groove said:
I still have no idea what you wanted an answer to in the first place. Ask me again what it was please.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
If I came across as pretty awesome then thanks!tempo_n_groove said:
Now you sound like you're trying to speak like a Rhodes scholar...Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
It means you keep insisting to let the comment a vocal gun proponent thrust forward in defence of gun ownership... instead of allowing that comment to face its due response.tempo_n_groove said:
Sorry, I don't recall it. I left this thread for a bit. Re send it and I'll take a look.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I see you never commented on the piece I offered you regarding your suggestion that it is easier- or more appropriate- to dissect the mindset that leads to mass murder versus removing the tools of the trade.tempo_n_groove said:
I see it as an unnecessary tangent and deters from the real issue but it's an easy battle to pursue.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
It was a comment that warrants at least a bit of harping.tempo_n_groove said:
You going to keep harping on that? I'm over it because that won't help the argument.HughFreakingDillon said:
yes, he broke the law and slipped through the cracks. not all would. that is no excuse not to attempt it.PJPOWER said:The numbnut in CA, by law, would have most likely not carried out the murdering spree had law enforcement been doing their jobs. If certain current laws meant to prevent people like this from owning firearms are not even enforced, how are more laws going to help matters? For laws to work, enforcement is necessary...same situation with the shitbubble in TX. “Oh, but other countries bla bla bla”...The USA will not enforce similar legislation to Australia or Canada, it’s just not going to happen. Maybe those types of regulations would make a difference, but they are politically and legally untenable...that is why people are trying to think outside of the box. What else other than saying “but but other countries” can be done that IS legally and politically tenable?
On the bright side (if there is one in the CA spree), at least the elementary school seemed to do a pretty good job responding to this threat. The shitball was prevented from carrying out a massacre by diligence in the school staff.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/rancho-tehama-shooting-2/
australia's laws wouldn't apply to the US, but Canada's could. but again, gun laws aren't the sole issue here. apparently it's also largely due to a man and a woman getting married and the wife keeping her man happy.
If something is carelessly tosses out there in the hopes of promoting a viewpoint... people shouldn't be surprised when such utterings are challenged to the degree other people feel necessary.
Instead... you spend your energies basically saying, "C'mon gang. Yah. That comment never worked, but we're at least trying. So let that go. And the rest too. Until we finally get one that kinda works better okay?"
And I have no idea what this means as you seem to want to put words in my mouth that I would never say and make me sound like an ignorant hick...
The gun advocacy side is reaching at best. These 'reaches' need to face their due criticism lest some fool actually start to believe that nonsense. And if you think that's a stretch... your country voted for a confirmed lying, sex offender that ran on 'Let's Make America great Again' because many thought he'd make America great again.
I brought up something, a question, that I thought of myself. Apparently there is someone from the pro gun advocacy group(s) that proposed the same question?
It just sounds like you are trying to be smart and belittling about a comment that I made that I have already moved on about...
And I know you wanted to move on from it. That's the thing: other people didn't. It was rather egregious in its quality and it warranted a response more than just a roll of the eyes.
Thanks
And no, you didn't come across as awesome, I said you were "trying to", lol.
I responded tonsomething you had asked or suggested a while back now. If you care to look go ahead. If not that's fine too. The moment is well over."My brain's a good brain!"0 -
I'm exhausted with this mental fitness... Since you don't recall and I have no idea and we both don't seem to care I agree to "move on" too, lol.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I'm just playing along with you.tempo_n_groove said:
I still have no idea what you wanted an answer to in the first place. Ask me again what it was please.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
If I came across as pretty awesome then thanks!tempo_n_groove said:
Now you sound like you're trying to speak like a Rhodes scholar...Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
It means you keep insisting to let the comment a vocal gun proponent thrust forward in defence of gun ownership... instead of allowing that comment to face its due response.tempo_n_groove said:
Sorry, I don't recall it. I left this thread for a bit. Re send it and I'll take a look.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I see you never commented on the piece I offered you regarding your suggestion that it is easier- or more appropriate- to dissect the mindset that leads to mass murder versus removing the tools of the trade.tempo_n_groove said:
I see it as an unnecessary tangent and deters from the real issue but it's an easy battle to pursue.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
It was a comment that warrants at least a bit of harping.tempo_n_groove said:
You going to keep harping on that? I'm over it because that won't help the argument.HughFreakingDillon said:
yes, he broke the law and slipped through the cracks. not all would. that is no excuse not to attempt it.PJPOWER said:The numbnut in CA, by law, would have most likely not carried out the murdering spree had law enforcement been doing their jobs. If certain current laws meant to prevent people like this from owning firearms are not even enforced, how are more laws going to help matters? For laws to work, enforcement is necessary...same situation with the shitbubble in TX. “Oh, but other countries bla bla bla”...The USA will not enforce similar legislation to Australia or Canada, it’s just not going to happen. Maybe those types of regulations would make a difference, but they are politically and legally untenable...that is why people are trying to think outside of the box. What else other than saying “but but other countries” can be done that IS legally and politically tenable?
On the bright side (if there is one in the CA spree), at least the elementary school seemed to do a pretty good job responding to this threat. The shitball was prevented from carrying out a massacre by diligence in the school staff.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/rancho-tehama-shooting-2/
australia's laws wouldn't apply to the US, but Canada's could. but again, gun laws aren't the sole issue here. apparently it's also largely due to a man and a woman getting married and the wife keeping her man happy.
If something is carelessly tosses out there in the hopes of promoting a viewpoint... people shouldn't be surprised when such utterings are challenged to the degree other people feel necessary.
Instead... you spend your energies basically saying, "C'mon gang. Yah. That comment never worked, but we're at least trying. So let that go. And the rest too. Until we finally get one that kinda works better okay?"
And I have no idea what this means as you seem to want to put words in my mouth that I would never say and make me sound like an ignorant hick...
The gun advocacy side is reaching at best. These 'reaches' need to face their due criticism lest some fool actually start to believe that nonsense. And if you think that's a stretch... your country voted for a confirmed lying, sex offender that ran on 'Let's Make America great Again' because many thought he'd make America great again.
I brought up something, a question, that I thought of myself. Apparently there is someone from the pro gun advocacy group(s) that proposed the same question?
It just sounds like you are trying to be smart and belittling about a comment that I made that I have already moved on about...
And I know you wanted to move on from it. That's the thing: other people didn't. It was rather egregious in its quality and it warranted a response more than just a roll of the eyes.
Thanks
And no, you didn't come across as awesome, I said you were "trying to", lol.
I responded tonsomething you had asked or suggested a while back now. If you care to look go ahead. If not that's fine too. The moment is well over.
Thread integrity:
What Finestein wants is exactly what gun owners do not, an all out ban.0 -
Then what was your point with that %?tempo_n_groove said:
I knew these stupid attacks were coming...Halifax2TheMax said:
Guess you don't care about the 22,500 then so is it safe to assume that you also don't care about the thousands maimed, injured and having their lives ruined because they were shot? Since Newtown, 112,500. No problem.tempo_n_groove said:HughFreakingDillon said:
that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero.mcgruff10 said:
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.HughFreakingDillon said:
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?tempo_n_groove said:
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.HughFreakingDillon said:
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?PJPOWER said:
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.HughFreakingDillon said:
how did I contradict myself?PJPOWER said:
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.HughFreakingDillon said:
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.jeffbr said:
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.CM189191 said:PJPOWER said:
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.oftenreading said:"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws
us democracy is like the model T
ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it
now other countries do it better than we do
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.0.00857142857143% is the actual percentage of people that die from guns in the US...
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, I love when people do that.0 -
I think this suggests that most gun owners are reasonable people.HughFreakingDillon said:Some Interesting Poll Data
77% of NRA members favor a waiting period for purchase of a handgun
82% of American support limiting the sales of military-style assault weapons
94% of police chiefs favor requiring a background check for all handgun sales.
Support for background checks on private gun sales, including gun shows:
- 87% of American
- 83% of gun owners
- 69% of NRA gun-owners
Support for limiting handgun sales to one per person per month:
- 65% of Americans
- 59% of gun owners
Support for registration of handguns
- 79% of Americans
- 69% of police chiefs
- 61% of gun owners
- 59% of NRA members
The only one I don't agree with is the limit of 1 per month. I would be fine with 12 a year though (or even just 6), or 3 every quarter. There's a difference. For instance, black friday specials, or any other sale, maybe there's 2 or 3 that I've saved up for and are on sale.
Or in an example with my dad who is a cop, when my brother became a cop he bought matching guns and gave one to my brother to carry on duty. Any dad with 2 sons may want to get matching hunting rifles for a special occasion.
I don't feel terribly strong about it, but that's the only one I wouldn't agree with.Post edited by mace1229 on0 -
Thanks for making 22,500 gun deaths seem so insignificant with the .00857142857143% of all deaths citation. I love it when people minimize tragedy. My calculator doesn't have enough decimal places to put the Vegas deaths in perspective.tempo_n_groove said:
I knew these stupid attacks were coming...Halifax2TheMax said:
Guess you don't care about the 22,500 then so is it safe to assume that you also don't care about the thousands maimed, injured and having their lives ruined because they were shot? Since Newtown, 112,500. No problem.tempo_n_groove said:HughFreakingDillon said:
that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero.mcgruff10 said:
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.HughFreakingDillon said:
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?tempo_n_groove said:
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.HughFreakingDillon said:
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?PJPOWER said:
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.HughFreakingDillon said:
how did I contradict myself?PJPOWER said:
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.HughFreakingDillon said:
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.jeffbr said:
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.CM189191 said:PJPOWER said:
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.oftenreading said:"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws
us democracy is like the model T
ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it
now other countries do it better than we do
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.0.00857142857143% is the actual percentage of people that die from guns in the US...
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, I love when people do that.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 -
I actually thought that one thing was unbelievable, that anyone would have an issue with being able to buy a gun per month. that's buying guns more often than I buy peanut butter!mace1229 said:
I think this suggests that most gun owners are reasonable people.HughFreakingDillon said:Some Interesting Poll Data
77% of NRA members favor a waiting period for purchase of a handgun
82% of American support limiting the sales of military-style assault weapons
94% of police chiefs favor requiring a background check for all handgun sales.
Support for background checks on private gun sales, including gun shows:
- 87% of American
- 83% of gun owners
- 69% of NRA gun-owners
Support for limiting handgun sales to one per person per month:
- 65% of Americans
- 59% of gun owners
Support for registration of handguns
- 79% of Americans
- 69% of police chiefs
- 61% of gun owners
- 59% of NRA members
The only one I don't agree with is the limit of 1 per month. I would be fine with 12 a year though (or even just 6), or 3 every quarter. There's a difference. For instance, black friday specials, or any other sale, maybe there's 2 or 3 that I've saved up for and are on sale.
Or in an example with my dad who is a cop, when my brother became a cop he bought matching guns and gave one to my brother to carry on duty. Any dad with 2 suns may want to get matching hunting rifles for a special occasion.
I don't feel terribly strong about it, but that's the only one I wouldn't agree with.Post edited by HughFreakingDillon onBy The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
an "all out ban". really? it's a:tempo_n_groove said:
I'm exhausted with this mental fitness... Since you don't recall and I have no idea and we both don't seem to care I agree to "move on" too, lol.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I'm just playing along with you.tempo_n_groove said:
I still have no idea what you wanted an answer to in the first place. Ask me again what it was please.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
If I came across as pretty awesome then thanks!tempo_n_groove said:
Now you sound like you're trying to speak like a Rhodes scholar...Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
It means you keep insisting to let the comment a vocal gun proponent thrust forward in defence of gun ownership... instead of allowing that comment to face its due response.tempo_n_groove said:
Sorry, I don't recall it. I left this thread for a bit. Re send it and I'll take a look.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I see you never commented on the piece I offered you regarding your suggestion that it is easier- or more appropriate- to dissect the mindset that leads to mass murder versus removing the tools of the trade.tempo_n_groove said:
I see it as an unnecessary tangent and deters from the real issue but it's an easy battle to pursue.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
It was a comment that warrants at least a bit of harping.tempo_n_groove said:
You going to keep harping on that? I'm over it because that won't help the argument.HughFreakingDillon said:
yes, he broke the law and slipped through the cracks. not all would. that is no excuse not to attempt it.PJPOWER said:The numbnut in CA, by law, would have most likely not carried out the murdering spree had law enforcement been doing their jobs. If certain current laws meant to prevent people like this from owning firearms are not even enforced, how are more laws going to help matters? For laws to work, enforcement is necessary...same situation with the shitbubble in TX. “Oh, but other countries bla bla bla”...The USA will not enforce similar legislation to Australia or Canada, it’s just not going to happen. Maybe those types of regulations would make a difference, but they are politically and legally untenable...that is why people are trying to think outside of the box. What else other than saying “but but other countries” can be done that IS legally and politically tenable?
On the bright side (if there is one in the CA spree), at least the elementary school seemed to do a pretty good job responding to this threat. The shitball was prevented from carrying out a massacre by diligence in the school staff.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/rancho-tehama-shooting-2/
australia's laws wouldn't apply to the US, but Canada's could. but again, gun laws aren't the sole issue here. apparently it's also largely due to a man and a woman getting married and the wife keeping her man happy.
If something is carelessly tosses out there in the hopes of promoting a viewpoint... people shouldn't be surprised when such utterings are challenged to the degree other people feel necessary.
Instead... you spend your energies basically saying, "C'mon gang. Yah. That comment never worked, but we're at least trying. So let that go. And the rest too. Until we finally get one that kinda works better okay?"
And I have no idea what this means as you seem to want to put words in my mouth that I would never say and make me sound like an ignorant hick...
The gun advocacy side is reaching at best. These 'reaches' need to face their due criticism lest some fool actually start to believe that nonsense. And if you think that's a stretch... your country voted for a confirmed lying, sex offender that ran on 'Let's Make America great Again' because many thought he'd make America great again.
I brought up something, a question, that I thought of myself. Apparently there is someone from the pro gun advocacy group(s) that proposed the same question?
It just sounds like you are trying to be smart and belittling about a comment that I made that I have already moved on about...
And I know you wanted to move on from it. That's the thing: other people didn't. It was rather egregious in its quality and it warranted a response more than just a roll of the eyes.
Thanks
And no, you didn't come across as awesome, I said you were "trying to", lol.
I responded tonsomething you had asked or suggested a while back now. If you care to look go ahead. If not that's fine too. The moment is well over.
Thread integrity:
What Finestein wants is exactly what gun owners do not, an all out ban.
-ban on NEW sales of automatic weapons and anything that can make a non-auto act like a semi-auto or auto
-all weapons (HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF THEM) legally obtained up to this point can remain in the system, just can't be transferred to another human. not sure why that's a sticking point.
I fail to see how this is unreasonable in any way shape or form. if the claim that gun owners want reasonable regulations, what is a reasonable regulation in your eyes?By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
But what is the purpose of limiting 1 a month? To prevent someone of buying guns to sell on the black market? To prevent someone from stockpiling a arsenal in a very short period of time?HughFreakingDillon said:
I actually thought that one thing was unbelievable, that anyone would have an issue with being able to buy a gun per month. that's more guns than I buy peanut butter!mace1229 said:
I think this suggests that most gun owners are reasonable people.HughFreakingDillon said:Some Interesting Poll Data
77% of NRA members favor a waiting period for purchase of a handgun
82% of American support limiting the sales of military-style assault weapons
94% of police chiefs favor requiring a background check for all handgun sales.
Support for background checks on private gun sales, including gun shows:
- 87% of American
- 83% of gun owners
- 69% of NRA gun-owners
Support for limiting handgun sales to one per person per month:
- 65% of Americans
- 59% of gun owners
Support for registration of handguns
- 79% of Americans
- 69% of police chiefs
- 61% of gun owners
- 59% of NRA members
The only one I don't agree with is the limit of 1 per month. I would be fine with 12 a year though (or even just 6), or 3 every quarter. There's a difference. For instance, black friday specials, or any other sale, maybe there's 2 or 3 that I've saved up for and are on sale.
Or in an example with my dad who is a cop, when my brother became a cop he bought matching guns and gave one to my brother to carry on duty. Any dad with 2 suns may want to get matching hunting rifles for a special occasion.
I don't feel terribly strong about it, but that's the only one I wouldn't agree with.
You can still prevent all that with a limit of 12 of even 6 a year. I know people who have bought matching hunting rifles for their kids, and I don't see the harm in allowing that.0 -
I am guessing it is to prevent someone from stockpiling an arsenal in a very short period of time.mace1229 said:
But what is the purpose of limiting 1 a month? To prevent someone of buying guns to sell on the black market? To prevent someone from stockpiling a arsenal in a very short period of time?HughFreakingDillon said:
I actually thought that one thing was unbelievable, that anyone would have an issue with being able to buy a gun per month. that's more guns than I buy peanut butter!mace1229 said:
I think this suggests that most gun owners are reasonable people.HughFreakingDillon said:Some Interesting Poll Data
77% of NRA members favor a waiting period for purchase of a handgun
82% of American support limiting the sales of military-style assault weapons
94% of police chiefs favor requiring a background check for all handgun sales.
Support for background checks on private gun sales, including gun shows:
- 87% of American
- 83% of gun owners
- 69% of NRA gun-owners
Support for limiting handgun sales to one per person per month:
- 65% of Americans
- 59% of gun owners
Support for registration of handguns
- 79% of Americans
- 69% of police chiefs
- 61% of gun owners
- 59% of NRA members
The only one I don't agree with is the limit of 1 per month. I would be fine with 12 a year though (or even just 6), or 3 every quarter. There's a difference. For instance, black friday specials, or any other sale, maybe there's 2 or 3 that I've saved up for and are on sale.
Or in an example with my dad who is a cop, when my brother became a cop he bought matching guns and gave one to my brother to carry on duty. Any dad with 2 suns may want to get matching hunting rifles for a special occasion.
I don't feel terribly strong about it, but that's the only one I wouldn't agree with.
You can still prevent all that with a limit of 12 of even 6 a year. I know people who have bought matching hunting rifles for their kids, and I don't see the harm in allowing that.
buying matching hunting rifles for their kids. jesus christ. sorry if I don't find that endearing.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
I don't expect everyone too. But to people who hunt, hunting season is a big deal to them, and a big father-son tradition. Some people take weeks off of work and school to go on a hunting trip. Personally I don;t hunt, but if that is your thing and a father-son thing the dad looks forward to every year, I completely understand wanting to get something special for the occasion.HughFreakingDillon said:
I am guessing it is to prevent someone from stockpiling an arsenal in a very short period of time.mace1229 said:
But what is the purpose of limiting 1 a month? To prevent someone of buying guns to sell on the black market? To prevent someone from stockpiling a arsenal in a very short period of time?HughFreakingDillon said:
I actually thought that one thing was unbelievable, that anyone would have an issue with being able to buy a gun per month. that's more guns than I buy peanut butter!mace1229 said:
I think this suggests that most gun owners are reasonable people.HughFreakingDillon said:Some Interesting Poll Data
77% of NRA members favor a waiting period for purchase of a handgun
82% of American support limiting the sales of military-style assault weapons
94% of police chiefs favor requiring a background check for all handgun sales.
Support for background checks on private gun sales, including gun shows:
- 87% of American
- 83% of gun owners
- 69% of NRA gun-owners
Support for limiting handgun sales to one per person per month:
- 65% of Americans
- 59% of gun owners
Support for registration of handguns
- 79% of Americans
- 69% of police chiefs
- 61% of gun owners
- 59% of NRA members
The only one I don't agree with is the limit of 1 per month. I would be fine with 12 a year though (or even just 6), or 3 every quarter. There's a difference. For instance, black friday specials, or any other sale, maybe there's 2 or 3 that I've saved up for and are on sale.
Or in an example with my dad who is a cop, when my brother became a cop he bought matching guns and gave one to my brother to carry on duty. Any dad with 2 suns may want to get matching hunting rifles for a special occasion.
I don't feel terribly strong about it, but that's the only one I wouldn't agree with.
You can still prevent all that with a limit of 12 of even 6 a year. I know people who have bought matching hunting rifles for their kids, and I don't see the harm in allowing that.
buying matching hunting rifles for their kids. jesus christ. sorry if I don't find that endearing.0 -
Yeah one a month is really really dumb. In new jersey I can purchase only one handgun a month but can buy as many rifles or shotguns as I want lol. It's another example of feel good legislation.mace1229 said:
But what is the purpose of limiting 1 a month? To prevent someone of buying guns to sell on the black market? To prevent someone from stockpiling a arsenal in a very short period of time?HughFreakingDillon said:
I actually thought that one thing was unbelievable, that anyone would have an issue with being able to buy a gun per month. that's more guns than I buy peanut butter!mace1229 said:
I think this suggests that most gun owners are reasonable people.HughFreakingDillon said:Some Interesting Poll Data
77% of NRA members favor a waiting period for purchase of a handgun
82% of American support limiting the sales of military-style assault weapons
94% of police chiefs favor requiring a background check for all handgun sales.
Support for background checks on private gun sales, including gun shows:
- 87% of American
- 83% of gun owners
- 69% of NRA gun-owners
Support for limiting handgun sales to one per person per month:
- 65% of Americans
- 59% of gun owners
Support for registration of handguns
- 79% of Americans
- 69% of police chiefs
- 61% of gun owners
- 59% of NRA members
The only one I don't agree with is the limit of 1 per month. I would be fine with 12 a year though (or even just 6), or 3 every quarter. There's a difference. For instance, black friday specials, or any other sale, maybe there's 2 or 3 that I've saved up for and are on sale.
Or in an example with my dad who is a cop, when my brother became a cop he bought matching guns and gave one to my brother to carry on duty. Any dad with 2 suns may want to get matching hunting rifles for a special occasion.
I don't feel terribly strong about it, but that's the only one I wouldn't agree with.
You can still prevent all that with a limit of 12 of even 6 a year. I know people who have bought matching hunting rifles for their kids, and I don't see the harm in allowing that.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
How about one gun, any kind of gun, per month?0
-
To show that we "all" aren't getting our heads blown off.dignin said:
Then what was your point with that %?tempo_n_groove said:
I knew these stupid attacks were coming...Halifax2TheMax said:
Guess you don't care about the 22,500 then so is it safe to assume that you also don't care about the thousands maimed, injured and having their lives ruined because they were shot? Since Newtown, 112,500. No problem.tempo_n_groove said:HughFreakingDillon said:
that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero.mcgruff10 said:
It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years.HughFreakingDillon said:
yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?tempo_n_groove said:
That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks. Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in. It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it. You die, your gun gets destroyed.HughFreakingDillon said:
all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?PJPOWER said:
I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that. Feinstein’s is a perfect example.HughFreakingDillon said:
how did I contradict myself?PJPOWER said:
Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable. You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable. Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place. Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking. The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency. If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens. The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”. Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.HughFreakingDillon said:
it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby.jeffbr said:
No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet. That is our sad reality.CM189191 said:PJPOWER said:
Um...no. It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things. Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”. A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.oftenreading said:"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect.
democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws
us democracy is like the model T
ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it
now other countries do it better than we do
all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?
edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in.
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary
The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.
yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur.
same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning.
americans don't seem to.
it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring.
the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.0.00857142857143% is the actual percentage of people that die from guns in the US...
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, I love when people do that.
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