America's Gun Violence

mace1229 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

tempo_n_groove said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Tobacco thing to me is way different.  They spent billions of dollars concocting additives to make it addicting, kind of like the pharmaceuticals now.

No advertising or concoction is making people want to buy guns and go shoot up people/places, and please don't say the NRA is.

But... the NRA is.

But anyway, didn't the court make this decision at least partly because of Remington advertising?? And FWIW, the entire American gun culture, among other thing is absolutely what contributes to people going and shooting up people/places, and both the NRA and Remington and other gun manufactures have a vested interest in advancing that gun culture. And frankly, I don't think the gun culture and physical addiction to a substance are as different as you seem to think they are. Both are very difficult to counter if you're caught up in it (no, I do not intend to displace blame on shooters when I say that; there is more than enough blame to go around).

So in your opinion should video games and movies be held accountable? If you go that route I don't see how you can't pass blame and therefore consequences on violent video games and movies that glorify violence. Then where do you stop, just the production company or do you go after the writer, director and actors too? I know it sounds stupid, I just don't know how you could hold Remington liable because they contribute to the culture and ignore what I would consider a much larger factor. 
Hollywood completely embraces the gun culture when it makes them money (and then protests against it). Many shooters have openly admitted they were inspired by movies, so this is not something I'm making up.
Quentin Tarantino probably has as much vested interest in gun culture as Remington.
I don't think either are responsible, but if you hold Remington responsible how does that not open the door for suing Hollywood for their influence? 

no. hollywood/entertainment sells fantasy. 

NRA sells fear induced "reality". 

Nobody wants to own a bolt action rifle that the NRA hunting page might promote, you want an AK that Ice Cube is singing about or that bitchin AR15 they were using in the Suicide Squad movie.

or that SP-1 in that video game...

I had a conversation with a 15 year old about guns that he really shouldn't have known about, sniper rifles and oddball guns.  He learned about them through video games.  He knew how good they were on how they performed in the games, kind of like cars in Gran Turismo.

I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell. 

They talk about the government "taking your guns".

This is going to happen in my lifetime.

I personally don't think it will happen in my life time. But it is funny to me every time someone belittles the idea that it might happen. If they scroll back through this thread and you will see dozens of comments like "it worked for Australia, it could work for us." Its just funny that people call for it, then make fun of those who "Fear the big gub'ment taking your guns." It is perfectly reasonable to see that it could happen, I just don't think it will.

mace1229 said:

There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?

tempo_n_groove said:

Bentleyspop said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Bentleyspop said:

tempo_n_groove said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell. 

They talk about the government "taking your guns".

This is going to happen in my lifetime.

You honestly believe that the government is going to come and take your guns?

Honestly?

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I'm not talking about the guns the NRA is selling. I'm talking about the ideology that they sell. 

They talk about the government "taking your guns".

This is going to happen in my lifetime.

not a chance. 

If you want SERIOUS gun reform then yes, you will have to confiscate/ban them.

I don't see any other way that would make people happy about gun control other than what has happened in other countries. Which is an all out ban.

New Zealand is talking about doing a semi auto ban.  I'm not sure if that  would grandfather the current ones or they give them up but I do know that many people would be happy with that here. 

There is a wave of younger generation that has no need for firearms and could care less about the 2nd amendment so yes, I do see this happening in my lifetime.

I don't gamble, other than the stock market, but I'd wager and unopened Benny it will not happen in your lifetime.
Banning of certain types of guns yes maybe.
But the Government coming to take them? Not going to happen.
That is full on alex jones conspiracy theory bull.

Not literally banging on your door and taking them but essentially banning a gun is taking it away from you so that is what I mean by "taking  your guns" so it's not an Alex Jones reference.

So in my view, banning a type of weapon is "taking your guns".

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?

Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low.  So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns.  Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done. 

So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place. 

Meltdown99 said:

brianlux said:

Meltdown99 said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?

Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low.  So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns.  Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done. 

So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place. 

Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay.  I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol

I guess the trick is to just ask nicely.

Seriously though, there are just too many gun owners who literally see it as their God-given right to possess fire arms and most of whom are no way just going to hand over their fire arms.  No, the answer is very complicated and complex- more education, build safer communities, stronger background checks and registration including gun safety courses, banning of automatic weapons.  Even just one of those is a big goal.  Unfortunately, I don't see how this gun issue will ever be resolved. 

That is so true.  That's why disarming them is not a real feasible goal.  Tougher gun laws would be a start, better background checks.  

josevolution said:

Thank god the Baffoon declared a made up national emergency ..

tempo_n_groove said:

Meltdown99 said:

brianlux said:

Meltdown99 said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?

Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low.  So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns.  Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done. 

So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place. 

Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay.  I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol

I guess the trick is to just ask nicely.

Seriously though, there are just too many gun owners who literally see it as their God-given right to possess fire arms and most of whom are no way just going to hand over their fire arms.  No, the answer is very complicated and complex- more education, build safer communities, stronger background checks and registration including gun safety courses, banning of automatic weapons.  Even just one of those is a big goal.  Unfortunately, I don't see how this gun issue will ever be resolved. 

That is so true.  That's why disarming them is not a real feasible goal.  Tougher gun laws would be a start, better background checks.  

Background checks is a hot talking point.

What should a background check consist of?  

What would you like to see done?

mcgruff10 said:

Meltdown99 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Meltdown99 said:

brianlux said:

Meltdown99 said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?

Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low.  So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns.  Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done. 

So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place. 

Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay.  I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol

I guess the trick is to just ask nicely.

Seriously though, there are just too many gun owners who literally see it as their God-given right to possess fire arms and most of whom are no way just going to hand over their fire arms.  No, the answer is very complicated and complex- more education, build safer communities, stronger background checks and registration including gun safety courses, banning of automatic weapons.  Even just one of those is a big goal.  Unfortunately, I don't see how this gun issue will ever be resolved. 

That is so true.  That's why disarming them is not a real feasible goal.  Tougher gun laws would be a start, better background checks.  

Background checks is a hot talking point.

What should a background check consist of?  

What would you like to see done?

I am a Canadian.  

In Canada, you must take a firearms safety course and pass before purchasing unrestricted firearms.  You must also take a hunters safety course before you can hunt legally.

Firearms Safety Training

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/safe_sur/index-eng.htm

You can own restricted weapons, but 1st must apply for a restricted weapons permit, and if you get restricted weapons permit, the rules involved in transporting your gun are stiff.  Upon purchasing your restricted weapon, you would be placed on the restricted weapons registry.

Canadian Firearms Registry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry

And all guns must be in the locked cabinet and stored separately from the ammo.

Once again this does nothing to stop the criminal, and we have our fair share of gun crime.

I have no problem with any of these.  

tempo_n_groove said:

mcgruff10 said:

Meltdown99 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Meltdown99 said:

brianlux said:

Meltdown99 said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

There are several reasons it wouldn't happen, but the biggest one is cost. I rarely hear anyone talk about the cost of a buyback program. If it is not voluntary, but mandatory then it isn't right to only offer $100 a gun, it would have to be the fair market value. And it is not uncommon for guns to cost $1000 or more. The $5.5 billion that many laughed at to build the wall is probably what a buyback program would cost. Who here wants to donate a ten thousands dollars to support this?

Statistics show that about 43% of American households have at least one gun and I'm guessing that's low.  So think about how many people would have to be hired to go out and confiscate all those guns.  Basically half the country would be confiscating guns from the other half and nothing else would get done. 

So the logical thing to do is to start by banning assault rifles and then, even more importantly, work on making life better (and by better I don't mean just being able to buy more stuff) so that people will be happier and feel safer and then maybe opt not to buy yet another goddamn gun in the first place. 

Would the half that gets to confiscate the guns get danger pay.  I can not imagine what could go wrong by trying to confiscate guns from people that have plenty of ammo and are pissed that they are having their guns confiscated...lol

I guess the trick is to just ask nicely.

Seriously though, there are just too many gun owners who literally see it as their God-given right to possess fire arms and most of whom are no way just going to hand over their fire arms.  No, the answer is very complicated and complex- more education, build safer communities, stronger background checks and registration including gun safety courses, banning of automatic weapons.  Even just one of those is a big goal.  Unfortunately, I don't see how this gun issue will ever be resolved. 

That is so true.  That's why disarming them is not a real feasible goal.  Tougher gun laws would be a start, better background checks.  

Background checks is a hot talking point.

What should a background check consist of?  

What would you like to see done?

I am a Canadian.  

In Canada, you must take a firearms safety course and pass before purchasing unrestricted firearms.  You must also take a hunters safety course before you can hunt legally.

Firearms Safety Training

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/safe_sur/index-eng.htm

You can own restricted weapons, but 1st must apply for a restricted weapons permit, and if you get restricted weapons permit, the rules involved in transporting your gun are stiff.  Upon purchasing your restricted weapon, you would be placed on the restricted weapons registry.

Canadian Firearms Registry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry

And all guns must be in the locked cabinet and stored separately from the ammo.

Once again this does nothing to stop the criminal, and we have our fair share of gun crime.

I have no problem with any of these.  

fine with it except this.

Not sure if a shotgun would fall under this rule but I'd take issue with this.