Senate Gun Control

Everyone in this thread would like to see those things fixed. If you think they don't, you're a nut. No one is anti-following the rules we already have.

 

This sounds similar to what proponents of various other proposed laws such as gay marriage, Abortion tto name but two suggest you religious types very frequently

Don't want to get married to the same sex then don't

Don't want an abortion, then don't

This swings both ways


You want to own a gun. Fine, there are very few people advocating an outright ban, just some more sensible laws surround who can have a gun and what type of gun they have.

If you want to get all resentful over the fact you can't own super sub 9000 multi bullet super kill machine in your own home, then perhaps that's because that gun and type of gun has frequently been used to kill vast amounts of kids at school and as a result the right to own that type of gun needs to be restricted and the kids right to life far exceed your right to have a weapon of death.

Now a rule could be implemented that says you could own this gun provided XYZ was followed but you gun rights individuals obfuscate and piss and moan consistently as more and more kids are killed by people who should never have access to these things as a result XYZ is never defined and kids are killed that frequently, no one wants to discuss it as "Now is not the time".

Home defence can easily be maintained with a handgun or a shotgun with a handful of cartridges loaded. (or an alarm for deterrent and a big eff off dog)

You're worried about being mugged, then just give them your stuff and claim on your insurance as lives are worth more than stuff irrespective how scummy the mugger is.



But no, rather than try to engage and see what reasonable laws could be looked into that helps you'll obfuscate and get pissy and moan and this damn thread will repeat the same cycle time after time after time until you go away again or your brother returns or we get a noob who drive by posts until they get bored but also gets pissy and moans.


And all the while kids die in schools almost weekly.




It's as if you believe your right to a gun is greater than another persons right to a life.


And I thought you were religious. If your god advocates for this sort of thing then I'm beyond glad I'm an atheist as valuing a death dealing lump of metal over the life of anyone is just sick.

 

What I don’t understand is why you all have such a hard on to get rid of particular guns? Get rid of AR15s, then a different gun is used. Gotta get rid of that one now. Then the next, and the next... see where this is going? This is why gun enthusiasts “piss and moan” cause you aren’t solving the underlying issue. Hell you aren’t even addressing it.

A common theme in all this is most of these shooters are victims of bullying and are inspired by the incessant media coverage of past shootings. These killers want the attention, want revenge, want to stop being harassed, and want to one up the killer before them.

Our culture, not the guns, is the problem. Parents aren’t instilling proper values in their kids. Our communities aren’t as tight knit as they once were. As a society we live in far too much fear compared to just a few decades ago despite overall crime rates decreasing.

How about instead of trying to prevent people from having access to weapons (cause face it, near anything can be turned into a weapon so you can’t get rid of them) we instead work to prevent these people from turning into killers in the first place?

 

I 100% agree that you should be doing all that too.

100%




But that sort of stuff costs money and as you don't have any sort of nhs type system that would enable these people to get the help they need without bankrupting them..




Consider it a two pronged approach.

Deal with the insane level of proliferation of weapons by making it a little harder to obtain and also perhaps removing some types of weapons as well as putting a decent level if healthcare in place that supports those who do have mental issues.



The second one is a bit too communisty for some of you so that's a bust and the first is always put on hold as a result of pissy moany wahgarble or as more kids have been killed it's clearly too soon to talk about it.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

I agree. Handguns are used much more often to murder people and commit suicide than rifles are, so a gun ban needs to be much more comprehensive than simply "assault weapons."

Not true. That's an incessant myth that originated with the myth that the Columbine shooters were motivated by having been victims of bullying. This recent newspaper shooting, for example, was carried out by someone who harassed and threatened people and would be more accurately characterized as a bully himself.

Like someone said earlier, you're just bringing up the same old talking points that have been beaten to death in this thread already. But JediSmuggler has been around forever and he's still doing it, so .

 

Just because one or more shootings don’t fit that narrative doesn’t mean that many of the others do. But since you brought it up do you feel like most of these shooters are irredeemable and unreachable psychopaths like Columbine’s Haris?

 

Why does it matter if they're "irredeemable psychopaths"?

 

It should be easy for irredemable psychopaths to get guns, obvs.

....

 

It’s relevant to whether we discuss treating an underlying problem or not.

Tell me, the new fish, how is it easy to get a gun?

 

Most bullies, from what I can tell, were victims of domestic abuse and/or have anti-social personality disorder. A few of them have good home lives, but are bullied at school. Or work. Or wherever.

It's understandable why some would want to gloss over this: because admitting such feels like an attempt to sympathize with and to some degree excuse the murder of innocent people.

But no. If you honestly want to solve this issue, you look into all the contributing factors. I realize the attribution of shooters to bullying started with Columbine, but... that's the incident that started it all.

Are there any here with psychology degrees? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it usually does take some sort of serious trauma to transform what we would term a sociopath into a homicidal psychopath. "A sociopath is more likely to take your wallet than your life", as the phrase goes?

Yesterday I made a post here about teaching emotional intelligence in schools. Schools are mostly state, but it doesn't matter. One state adopting the new paradigm would inevitably lead to others doing the same when it turned out to be helpful.

Nobody responded. I guess the government taking away everyone's firearms is a more realistic first step toward utopia than explaining to girls and boys how to get along?

"Teach men not to rape. Or shoot up schools. And everything else toxic masculinity implies."

 

Is "the new fish" solojones' new nickname and I've just missed it until now? Because I am totally on board with that.

 

Only now, you run headlong into the rulings in Heller and McDonald, which clearly place handguns within the scope of the right protected by the Second Amendment.

Or do you want to repeal the Amendment?

 

Yes, people who've been posting here for 18 years are obviously new, mewling infants who know nothing of the world.

And how is it easy to get a gun? What? At gun shows you can get one without a waiting period or a background check. Or maybe you could just google places to buy guns online and find several in a matter of minutes. Or just walk into your local Walmart.

Or how about your relative dies, gifts you a gun in their will, and you call up the state to ask them how to register it... And they tell you your state doesn't keep any registries on any guns. So literally anyone could have any kind of gun and no one would know. Even though you have to register your car every year and have a license to drive one, none of that is required with a gun in my state and others.

But sure, super hard to get guns. It was definitely super hard for me to get a totally unlicensed, untracked gun that could kill people. Society just happens to be lucky in this case that I am both not murderous or suicidal and a responsible gun owner about it.

I guess luck is a good substitute for sensible policy.

 

I am aware of the Supreme Court's stupid opinions on the matter. I don't really care about the Second Amendment or the U.S. Constitution as a whole, so yeah, sure, if that's what it takes, repeal it.

 

You seem to ignore the fact that despite these horrific and tragic events, according to the latest FBI stats, you are more likely to be killed by knives (1,604), clubs or other blunt instruments (472), or even hand and feet (656) than a rifle of ANY type (374), much less the AR-15.

It is totally irrational on your part.

I see far more effort in trying to take away guns from people who have done nothing wrong, and far more energy labeling those who object to such wrong-headed bans as "child killers" or "domestic terrorists" than in fixing what I outlined.

 

Your own data actually shows that you're more likely to be killed by firearms than by all the other listed methods combined...

 

You forgot personal protection.

From a 2013 CDC report:
https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15

There are anywhere from 100,000 to over 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms in a given year. Even the low estimate means that guns have protected several times more often than they are used in homicides in a given year. Interestingly enough, the Centers for Disease Control may have confirmed the higher-end numbers in surveys done in the late 1990s.

I have zero desire to be left helpless and unable to protect myself.

 

You really are such a scared a terrified nation aren't you.


Oh no a brown person. Bang.

Oh no kids getting an education. Bang.


From recent news.

Oh a person knocked or my door to ask for directions. Bang.



Pathetic.




I clearly have less freedom than you as I can't own any gun I want but I promise you I'm nowhere near as scared as you.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

Also, regarding the personal protection thing, statistically the two biggest deterrents to home invasion are 1) leaving a TV on, and 2) the presence of a dog.

On the other hand, want to know what household item makes your home a more likely target for invasion? Firearms, as they can be pawned off for easy money.

 

You want to undo it? Convince the British in 1775 to not try forcibly confiscating guns from the American colonists.

Remember the midnight ride of Paul Revere? Lexington and Concord? Shot heard round the world?

That's what you'd have to do.

Keep in mind, many of those who are activists and supporters of the Second Amendment, who make that position a major factor - of not THE factor - that decides their vote, are aware of that history, too.

Look at the non-compliance rate in Massachusetts with the "bump stock" ban. No Australia-style buyback will work here. You'll have to try to forcibly confiscate the guns from people who believe such an action is a prelude to or means of perpetuating tyranny. The apparent turn by the Left against free speech is something else that is being noted.

That link is to the New York Times, by the way.

Your present course of action, and the present way that many advocates of gun control are talking about those who don't want to see new gun control laws enacted (either because they won't work, feel they wrongly punish people who did not commit crimes or acts of madness with them, or because they note there were other factors that should be addressed) is not changing minds. If anything, you've only made the NRA stronger.