Senate Gun Control

About the only factual statement you've made since you came here.
And since you obviously get your 'information' from places like Hannity, stop pretending like it represents one extreme in your never-ending failure of your desperate quest to try to convince people your some 'bothsider centrist'.

 

EDIT Wrong thread.

 

Which programs am I against, mental-health wise? I have said that it needs fixing which I believe it does. If you mean general Govt spending then yes I certainly fall on the side of less is better but that doesnt mean I dont think mental health is a real concern. Its moreso a concern nowadays than ever that I can remember. What Im not a fan of is the widespread use of drugs to treat symptoms which appear to possibly create their own set of problems. It also seems that many red flags are ignored. This is an old article about Adam Lanza but its still legit: https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/justice/newtown-shooter-adam-lanza-report/index.html. Red flags abound. Minimal/wrong action taken. Why?

The recent San Jose shooter apparently should have fallen under the GVRO but didnt. Not exactly mental health but these laws were created to try and stop this stuff. We're doing this wrong if we make laws and then they have no teeth or those in charge cant enforce them. Dont mean to go off course a little here but this is frustrating to me. There is so much to fix here but it appears the easy way out is to just take guns away. https://reason.com/2021/05/27/why-didnt-californias-red-flag-law-stop-the-san-jose-shooter/

@TCF-1138 Look - I watched the video. I didnt care for it or how they presented it. Sorry. That pro-gun guy is the exact thing Im against and have stood by that. I also didnt care for the videos content nor how it played out. Lets just leave it at that. No need to argue. Im glad Australia did what they did if it was the will of the people(at least a decent majority of them). The system worked. If at some stage they vote in or change to a new leader that makes gun changes back to allowing such weapons then so be it.

So, for those that support a straight out ban or wish to mimic what Australia did, you have your work cut out for you. While we do share some cultural concepts with the Aussies we are still a totally different nation. We have 300+ million people. They have around 25 million or almost 15 million LESS people than just California. We have 50 states. We have a constitution that provides us some rights(not everyone likes all of them, but it is what it is)that Australia doesnt have. So, its not so apples to apples as some anti-gunners wish to to make it. This applies to lots of other things where people say "well so and so country does this or that so why cant the USA just do this or that?". More reasons than meet the eye, thats why.

Especially those Scandinavian countries like Japan and Indonesia. <<< Meant as a joke due to a previous blunder by me, dont post any map links!

 

In this thread we learn that 4 is a quantity of guns so small that it's difficult for a law-abiding gun owner to hide his shame over what a low number of guns it is.

 

Sorry, "hopes and prayers" doesn't cut it, Mike.

The easy way out is to look sad but refuse to do **** all about it.
But thanks for sharing a link by a libertarian site that feels that mass shootings are 'rare'.

You didn't, no one believes you. Move on.
we are still a totally different nation. We have 300+ million people. They have around 25 million or almost 15 million LESS people than just California. We have 50 states. [/quote]Our flag looks totally different. "Australia" and "America" are spelled differently. Our time zones are way off. Water drains in the opposite direction, etc.
You're issuing a stream of pure gibberish to hide the fact that there's absolutely no reason why we couldn't implement the same changes, other than pro-gun 2nd Amendment obsessives like yourself pitching a fit.

 

But they're FDA approved. That was your gold standard only thing that matters earlier.

 

This guy?

 

There is no way in hell the US could do what we did in Australia. In Australia we not only banned certain types of firearms but we got them out of circulation by requiring owners to hand their banned firearms to police with a general amnesty. But in countries like Australia and the US the government can’t really appropriate personal property without compensation (watch the movie “The Castle”) so we had to implement a buy back scheme. Our buy back scheme cost the government something over $500 million.

That wouldn’t be enough to cover the outer suburbs of LA. There is not enough money in the US treasury to buy back a couple of hundred million firearms. Even if you banned classes of firearms tomorrow there are enough in circulation in the US to arm most of the world.

 

Having that much ammo as an individual should get you on a government watchlist if having that much ammo should be allowed at all.



San Francisco Chronicle - San Jose mass shooting: Ex-girlfriend of suspect Samuel Cassidy alleged rape and violent, alcohol-fueled 'mood swings'

Another reason abusers need to be reported for one, and reported into some kind of database to be flagged when it comes to gun buying and ownership later on.

 

Doesn't everyone have multiple cans of gasoline these days?

 

True, they can use it to lit a bonfire of any leftover excess of toilet paper they bought last year.

 

No, everyone has plastic bags and laundry baskets full of gasoline these days

 

Well now you're just arguing semantics

 

There are also actual speed limits on parts of the Autobahn-network. For some reason there aren't official numbers anymore, but the general assumption is that about 30% of them have a permanent speed limit. On top of that there are temporary limits due to construction-work and similar stuff.

 

That’s a good point. I mean, people do spend good money on some of these firearms and making them illegal retroactively with out any compensation is a dead concept for sure. Without a buyback, I suspect there’d be very limited participation. Correct on the circulation issue too. There are a lot of guns out there and many are not legal. Those aren’t getting turned in.

I still think the root cause of gun related or any other violence is what we need to go after. Get people to NOT want to kill others. Fix that and this goes away regardless of what we ban or dont ban.

Oh, got it. Do they use a lane system like we try to here where the left or far right lane is the fast lane? Something like that?

I agree. In my decades of gun ownership I’ve never felt the need or had any reason to stack up ammo or buy more than what was needed for a specific shooting session. They should require large ammo purchases be shipped to whatever event or sanctioned hunting center they claim the ammo is for. Do an extra background check too. Have a waiting period.

Also agree on a database for those convicted of abuse or any record of violence. They shouldn’t be allowed to buy firearms. Guns are for law abiding citizens with clean criminal records and a crystal clean mental health record. Anything at all that points to potential violence or any history of previous violence is a NO sale. This wouldn’t be hard to do or implement. We have like computers and stuff now. It’s the ££%@$ NRA and the hard gun lobby that stops it. So stupid.

 

You're one of the most vocal opponents of fixing some of the things that lead to these issues. Namely your opposition to reducing economic stresses, but also your opposition to providing support for mental health issues as well.

Anything? So then when will your guns be turned in due to your posts that point to potential violence? Your cavalier attitude towards killing people that don't pose a direct and immediate threat to the lives and safety of others is a much bigger red flag than most mental health issues are as they aren't indicators of 'potential violence'.

 

Considering your votes and general support for the politicians that are part of the hard gun lobby, does that mean you are calling yourself stupid too?

And no, its not a both sides thing, Republicans are the ones who block gun safety bills, disrupt hearings over mass shootings, say its always too soon to do something after yet another massacre (while happy to rush through their own bills) and only offer thoughts and prayers no matter how many people die.

 

Sort of. You are supposed to keep driving on the right side (there are usually two or three lanes per direction). You are only allowed to pass cars on the left, apart from traffic jams where all lanes are driving slowly. Usually you will find those who adhere to the standard speed on the right lane, meaning about 100 km/h for trucks and busses, 100-130 for cars. The left lane is used for overtaking. You are supposed to get back to the right lane once you have passed the vehicle you wanted to overtake. Though when there are three lanes, which is the standard on the bigger Autobahns, you will often see cars stick to the middle lane instead of moving all the way to the right. Especially when there are a lot of slower trucks on the right lane.

 

The desire to buy and own firearms as you even pointed out does certainly fall into other categories besides a desire to shoot people(which is probably very, very rare). There is also the reasonably popular hunting pastime. It’s still a fairly big thing for people. Then, you have varmint control on farms which non farming people don’t get but it’s a real thing. I know anti gunners want to group most gun owners into the "Rambo wanna bees" category but it’s not accurate at all.

Protection is code for "don’t attempt to harm me or my family and do not attempt to enter my private residence. If you do, it may not end well for you". Oh and yes, someone that’s threatening my family or property IS scary. So you’ve got that right. For best results, I suggest the criminals stop committing crimes. Then, their chances of being injured or killed by a homeowner drop significantly. I understand that some folks wish to take the pacifist route and huddle in their closet or wait for the police to show up. That’s fine. Not everyone does though and citizens have a right to protect themselves and their homes. That doesn’t make them "gun nuts" though.

Perhaps more gun sales should be banned. If we enforced the laws we have and added new ones then that would happen. Good. Gun ownership while being a right via the 2A, is still a privilege to me. Any criminal record or history of violence against anyone needs to be considered before allowing a gun purchase. Again, the gun lobby is what blocks this.