Texas shooting, Our fault.

mace1229 said:

benjs said:

mace1229 said:

benjs said:

mcgruff10 said:

fife said:

mattsl1983 said:

dignin said:

mattsl1983 said:

Meltdown99 said:

Why does someone get classified an anti-gunner just because they want common sense gun laws?

What is common sense gun laws?  It sounds really good to say, but what exactly is it?  I’ll stand behind you 100 percent if it’s good, but no one actually defines common sense gun laws.  And as a heads up, have some research behind what it is and what you are saying is common sense gun laws.  As a person speaking to you that believes I the 2nd amendment, I’m also a none gu owner.  I have nothing to win or gain in this debate aside my ideology of the 2nd amendment.  I’ve been wrong before and my world didn’t crash down.  But what is common sense gun laws?

It's hard to take you seriously with a post like this. Go over to the gun violence thread and read up, you might learn something.

In fact, mods should merge this thread with the gun violence thread....this one is redundant. 

I don’t think it is at all redundant.  The other gun thread is 100’s of pages long.  This shooting happened to involve two guns that aren’t even up for debate to be restricted.  But you are the second person to cite common sense gun laws but not explaining what they are.  I’ll meet you on the other post.  I apologize if you find my question and wondering hard to be taken seriously.

here are some common sense laws.

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.

the only change I would make is that you would have a mental health check every year.

Yeah this would never fly lol. Air rifles? What am I ten?

This is why this won’t work in America. When a suggestion arises to follow the lead of a country exponentially safer than your own, you ridicule it as though it’s some hilarious joke. I’m currently in Kanazawa and have been touring Japan for nearly two weeks now and you’re right, this will never fly. Concepts of care and concern, empathy, dignity, logic, honour and respect are innate to every person I’ve met here. In America? Not so much.

Your country’s mass murders will continue as will the apathy of those who cling to their right to bear arms. 

Everyone keeps saying "no one wants to ban your guns," and mocks those who think thats what people want.
But that is exactly what your suggestion is. Bans everything except a shotgun. 
Most gun owners are for more gun laws, just not all out gun bans. And why that suggestion won't get any support from any gun owner.

What about the other parts then? You ignored a lot of reasonable suggestions regarding checks and balances prior to owning a weapon.

In theory I’m for the rest of the ideas. I say in their because I’d be curious about the cost and logistics behind all that. I can’t imagine going down to the DMV once a year for a driving test, takes me half a day to just get my driving record, and that’s just a piece of paper that takes 15 seconds to look up. And I think that’s what makes a lot of people cautious, it’s perfectly reasonable to question how smooth and efficient the government would ha for that. And with the cost of healthcare, what’s the cost of yearly mental-health evaluations and who pays for it? I’m assuming the gun owner, but that wouldn’t fly either if they’re $500 a pop.
i would say start with a one-time mental check and safety course, background check for every purchase, 

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I completely support the gun owners paying for all those expenses. Why wouldn't that fly? I don't see why it shouldn't be expensive. That doesn't violate anyone's rights assuming you're going by how America operates in general. Hell, it wouldn't even be out of the ordinary.

As long as it is reasonable I have no problem. Hell I pay an extra $15 very time I buy a firearm just for last background check. 

benjs said:

mace1229 said:

benjs said:

mace1229 said:

benjs said:

mcgruff10 said:

fife said:

mattsl1983 said:

dignin said:

mattsl1983 said:

Meltdown99 said:

Why does someone get classified an anti-gunner just because they want common sense gun laws?

What is common sense gun laws?  It sounds really good to say, but what exactly is it?  I’ll stand behind you 100 percent if it’s good, but no one actually defines common sense gun laws.  And as a heads up, have some research behind what it is and what you are saying is common sense gun laws.  As a person speaking to you that believes I the 2nd amendment, I’m also a none gu owner.  I have nothing to win or gain in this debate aside my ideology of the 2nd amendment.  I’ve been wrong before and my world didn’t crash down.  But what is common sense gun laws?

It's hard to take you seriously with a post like this. Go over to the gun violence thread and read up, you might learn something.

In fact, mods should merge this thread with the gun violence thread....this one is redundant. 

I don’t think it is at all redundant.  The other gun thread is 100’s of pages long.  This shooting happened to involve two guns that aren’t even up for debate to be restricted.  But you are the second person to cite commonIf  sense gun laws but not explaining what they are.  I’ll meet you on the other post.  I apologize if you find my question and wondering hard to be taken seriously.

here are some common sense laws.

If Japanese people want to own a gun, they must attend an all-day class, pass a written test, and achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test. Then they have to pass a mental-health evaluation, which takes place at a hospital, and pass a background check, in which the government digs into their criminal record and interviews friends and family. They can only buy shotguns and air rifles — no handguns — and every three years they must retake the class and initial exam.

the only change I would make is that you would have a mental health check every year.

Yeah this would never fly lol. Air rifles? What am I ten?

 

Your country’s mass murders will continue as will the apathy of those who cling to their right to bear arms. 

Everyone keeps saying "no one wants to ban your guns," and mocks those who think thats what people want.
But that is exactly what your suggestion is. Bans everything except a shotgun. 
Most gun owners are for more gun laws, just not all out gun bans. And why that suggestion won't get any support from any gun owner.

What about the other parts then? You ignored a lot of reasonable suggestions regarding checks and balances prior to owning a weapon.

In theory I’m for the rest of the ideas. I say in their because I’d be curious about the kcost and logistics behind all that. I can’t imagine going down to the DMV once a year for a driving test, takes me half a day to just get my driving record, and that’s just a piece of paper that takes 15 seconds to look up. And I think that’s what makes a lot of people cautious, it’s perfectly reasonable to question how smooth and efficient the government would ha for that. And with the cost of healthcare, what’s the cost of yearly mental-health evaluations and who pays for it? I’m assuming the gun owner, but that wouldn’t fly either if they’re $500 a pop.
i would say start with a one-time mental check and safety course, background check for every purchase, 

Proposed are safe and logical regulation of guns (which your peers on here would call “common sense gun control”) before what would probably amount to less than a cup of coffee a day for a year plus an assessment to not only prove you a safe and reasonable gun user, but also give the added benefit of early detection of mental issues.

You struggle with the horrendous reality of a buck a day gone, a training course with potentially redundant information, and a mental assessment. Others struggle with an abundance of dead children. Priorities, eh?  

Thoughts_Arrive said:

May I ask, why do people enjoy hunting?
I cannot understand the fun in killing animals for the sake of it.

Smellyman said:

rgambs said:

Thoughts_Arrive said:

May I ask, why do people enjoy hunting?
I cannot understand the fun in killing animals for the sake of it.

You might be surprised, many people who think they can't understand it find that they can once they have done it.
We are animals that are biologically programszp to kill.  It isn't so hard to understand why people enjoy it.  You ever go fishing and catch a decent or large fish?

I am vegan and I never liked catching fish.  My dad would take us fishing and I'd say that hurts the fish.  My dad would just say 'fish don't feel pain'.  Which is BS.

When you have the choice to kill or not there is only one choice.

We all only have one turn on this earth humans and all.  I prefer not to snuff out the spark.

fife said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I completely support the gun owners paying for all those expenses. Why wouldn't that fly? I don't see why it shouldn't be expensive. That doesn't violate anyone's rights assuming you're going by how America operates in general. Hell, it wouldn't even be out of the ordinary.

There have been many here who claim to not be for a ban, but then say they would be for measures that just make it impractical for the average person to afford one.
i think yearly mental checks and safety courses and everything else would add up very quickly, and if run by the government would no doubt be ineffective and a waste of time. I’ve spent a half day at the DMV just to get a copy of my driving record, how much worse would this process be?
i think a required safety course is reasonable. I think a mental health check is reasonable. I think background checks and registering your gun is reasonable. Doing all that every year will very likely price the average gun owner out of owning guns.
id even be fine with linking your dr visits to the registeation, so if you take antidepressants or other medications or warning signs them that could flag another check. Have a number friends and family and neighbors can call, like they do with child protective services. Just doesn’t seem necessary to do it every year for everyone. I think I’ve provided more than a fair compromise for gun control, demanding more than that will just make gun owners not want to do anything.

Just to put things in perspective, me and my wife are trying to adopt a kid and these are the things that we have to do just to be put on the list. 

have to attend a 8 day training course (8 hours a day)
have to give all my financial info ( have to do this every year that we are waiting)  
have to have 5 home visits from a trained social worker
Have to give a full medication eval (have to give every year)
have to give 5 references to children aid. 
have to attend other training courses as required
after we get our kid, children aid still comes to your house for atleast 6 month

now I have no problem with this and think this is reasonable.  the reason we have to do many of these things every year is because people change.  the reason i believe that people should get mental health backround every year is for the same reason.