America's Gun Violence

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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

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

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

HesCalledDyer said:

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

Halifax2TheMax said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HesCalledDyer said:

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

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

Or zombie apocalypse.

CM189191 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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

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

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

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

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

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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

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

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

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

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

HughFreakingDillon said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not only that...

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

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

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