Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[bripat9643]

Building bombs and molesting children are crimes. Somebody saying they are a white supremacist or saying they hate Mexicans on social media is not.

Regardless, in order to spy on anybody, you need a surveillance warrant to do that. Image how backlogged our courts would be with 20 million cases of accusations every year.

Then there is the fact that building bombs or molesting children are not constitutional rights. The right to bear arms is. That means the accused is allowed to have their day in court. You simply can't take away a constitutional right without a proper court hearing, and the ability of the accused to appeal decisions ruled against them.

But even if we had the ability to entertain all that, are you going to tell me that will stop all mass gun murders?

See you use another faux argument. I never said it would stop ALL mass gun murders. You are clearly not interested in having an honest debate as you make up shit to debate that I neither said nor implied. I’m not going to waste anymore time correcting your dishonesty. Perhaps we can pick up the debate some other time once you’ve grown up a bit.

That’s not what you’re pissed about. You’re pissed because I pointed out the many flaws in your proposal.

If your suggestion isn’t going to stop mass shootings, then why bother to inconvenience all other gun owners in the country if it isn’t going to solve anything?

See, the Democrat party also know their proposals won’t stop anything either. And when it doesn’t, on to the next set of laws that will have the same results. In the end, we will be stuck with a bunch of laws that don’t accomplish anything that we will never be able to get rid of. What it will do is make purchasing and keeping a firearm such a hassle, such a problem, and likely such an expense that most law abiding people will just not deal with it and remain unarmed.

It’s all part of the big plan.

How do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.

Get it?

What I get is that the kid who mows down people in a mass shooting could be identified and stopped - even helped and their life put back on the right track IF we concentrated on the ROOT OF THE PROBLEM. Watch your local news after a mass shooting. The people that know the shooter will say we knew that was going to happen, it didn't come as a surprise, etc.

We know long before these young people kill someone, but don't do a damn thing to prevent it. Then you don't help them and their first encounter with police as an adult is after they've killed someone.

I don't think people like YOU get it.

The gun isn't the root of the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Liberals are the root of the problem.

 

[bripat9643]

The first step was for one side to admit that we have an individual right to keep and bear arms.

That first step FAILED MISERABLY!!!

The gun-grabbers made us fight that out in Court, and we barely prevailed in a 5-4 SCOTUS decision.

Those who want regulation have a LONG way to go to earn our trust, would you not agree?

.

No I don’t agree... instead of fighting everything with an absolutist attitude and spreading fear of the slippery slope I’d rather see you get on board with ideas to help improve the situation. You spend all your time fighting against everything and not enough presenting better ideas. It’s counterproductive

You think the guys who want regulation are trustworthy after that attempt to end the right permanently via SCOTUS legislation from the bench?

I don't have an absolutist attitude. Every time the gun-grabbers propose a license or registry or other action, I ask them what they are willing give us in return.

If we go through the battery of background and mental health evaluations these fools demand, shouldn't we be deemed safe for any and all firearms?

The answer is a decided NO. They still want to cut us back even AFTER we jump the hoops.

So, I have no reason to believe that the gun-grabbers are acting in good faith. THEY ARE NOT!!!

We can't trust them.

.

You give these so called gun grabbers way too much power and are acting defensively. So instead of working on productive solutions you are defending and demonizing. Again, not a productive way to get things done. Take some power and control and promote what you think is right

Disarming the public isn't something I want done. I think the 2nd Amendment is right. I want you to keep your hands off of it.

Well good for you. I’m not interested in your guns bucko unless your a threat to society, in that case you can fuck off without your guns.

You obviously are interested in my guns because you keep talking about "productive solutions." What kind of "solutions" are those if not gun control?

 

[bripat9643]

It’s not a difficult concept to get behind.

It is when you realize that implementing it will lead to all sorts of abuse.....

What criteria? Who decides? How do you appeal? Who pays for the appeal?

Great questions. Let get a plan in place and answer those. Right now we are stuck in this game of all or nothing. I don’t see why it’s dofficult for the majority of us to agree on the simple notion that responsible people should have guns and high risk people shouldn’t. The first step is to agree on that. Then put a process in place that determines how it’s executed

The first step was for one side to admit that we have an individual right to keep and bear arms.

That first step FAILED MISERABLY!!!

The gun-grabbers made us fight that out in Court, and we barely prevailed in a 5-4 SCOTUS decision.

Those who want regulation have a LONG way to go to earn our trust, would you not agree?

.

No I don’t agree... instead of fighting everything with an absolutist attitude and spreading fear of the slippery slope I’d rather see you get on board with ideas to help improve the situation. You spend all your time fighting against everything and not enough presenting better ideas. It’s counterproductive

Your ideas will only move us closer to totalitarianism. I would rather you shut the fuck up and keep your puerile ideas to yourself.

You don’t want totalitarianism but you want me to shut the fuck up huh? You’re funny.

Do you not want socialism but you want the government to run everything as well?

Did I say I want the government to make you shut the fuck up? On the other hand, leftwingers are always using government to shut down the speech of their critics.

Stupid people should keep their mouths shut. I think everyone agrees on that.

 

[Slade3200]

t

People who are deemed violent and or mentally unstable

That is not at all legal.
That is what you expect in Russia, where anyone who is critical of the government is deemed violent or mentally unstable.
That not how law is supposed to work.
Anyone who is actually violent or mentally unstable should be involuntarily committed.
Preventing them from legally being able to buy a gun does nothing except corrupt the system.
A violent or mentally unstable person can still easily get a gun illegally, or flammables, poisons, explosives, large vehicles, etc.
What you suggest makes no sense, and it totally contrary to a democratic republic.

Who said anything about being critical of government as a disqualifying factor?! You’re injecting that into the conversation.

And what I say makes sense to millions who support gun control measures. Yes, some people will have contacts to get guns on the black market but others won’t and we need to have some safeguards in place so they can’t just walk into any old store and walk out with the power to kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds. Call me crazy if you must

That is silly.
Interjecting suppression of anything or anyone critical of government is EXACTLY what governments ALWAYS do!
Federal gun control is always a guaranteed means of suppressing any dissent, and being able to completely dominate and intimidate the entire population.
That is always the only point of any gun control, and always has been.

What you say your intent is makes no sense to anyone because they never actually thought about it.
They go by hysterical emotions that make no sense at all.
You are suggesting we try to disarm 100% of the non-government population, so that the criminal 0.1% can not just buy a gun from a gun store. And that clearly is ridiculous because the 0.1% who are criminals, already have their guns, and get all then need from drug traffickers from South America, Southeast Asia, the Balkans, etc.
All gun control laws do is disarm the honest people who we need and want to be armed, and all federal gun laws to is create a corrupt federal government that is not even supposed to be passing ANY weapons law at all.

You are crazy.
Obviously anyone too dangerous to allow to walk into a gun store to buy a gun, also can not be allowed in a fertilizer store to buy explosives, to buy gasoline, to buy poisons, etc.
Guns are likely the LEAST dangerous thing people could buy.
With something like ricin, which is easily obtained, one could not only kill thousands, but not even get caught.
It is clear you have NO understanding of technology, society, or common sense.
So it bares repeating, you are crazy is you support federal gun control in any way, shape, or form.

What proves you wrong is the fact that millions, like over half of Americans according to polls, support gun control measures. These are people who are neither in government nor hoping for government to control them. They support it because they feel like it makes them safer so it would do you some good to try and listen with an open mind. You don’t need to agree but at least try and understand their perspective. That way you won’t keep misstating it and sounding like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Those millions are uninformed on the issue, and don't know what they are voting for.

Well I’d say the vast majority of our country has been uninformed on the drug issue, especially pot, for many decades... yet we have our laws and we’ve been wasting an incredible amount of time lives and money fighting it

 

[Slade3200]

you forget what happened to all of our cars when we were forced to get licenses!


every car was confiscated!


and then when they forced us to get wedding licenses our brides were all rounded up and taken away!


same thing will happen with guns!

Then tell me what is the purpose of registering a car.

If you don't know I'll tell you

You have to register a car primarily so the state can tax you.

Since there is no legal way to put an excise tax on guns what is the purpose of registering them?

Let’s keep going... Why are licenses given for cars?

They are not. Anyone can own a car.

The license is to operate the car on public roads, which is not a right.

But, if the aim is to make sure we have people trained to safely use arms, we can accomplish that goal without the need for licensing.

I, and many like me, SUPPORT education in the safe and effective use of arms. Why wouldn't we?

.

You should support gun safety, we all should. How do you support it and promote more people to partake?

Anyone who wants to learn gun safety can take some of excellent courses offered by the NRA

MAybe we should force everyone to take gun safety courses

There ya go... kinda like getting a drivers license huh?

 

[bripat9643]

That’s not what you’re pissed about. You’re pissed because I pointed out the many flaws in your proposal.

If your suggestion isn’t going to stop mass shootings, then why bother to inconvenience all other gun owners in the country if it isn’t going to solve anything?

See, the Democrat party also know their proposals won’t stop anything either. And when it doesn’t, on to the next set of laws that will have the same results. In the end, we will be stuck with a bunch of laws that don’t accomplish anything that we will never be able to get rid of. What it will do is make purchasing and keeping a firearm such a hassle, such a problem, and likely such an expense that most law abiding people will just not deal with it and remain unarmed.

It’s all part of the big plan.

How do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.

Get it?

What I get is that the kid who mows down people in a mass shooting could be identified and stopped - even helped and their life put back on the right track IF we concentrated on the ROOT OF THE PROBLEM. Watch your local news after a mass shooting. The people that know the shooter will say we knew that was going to happen, it didn't come as a surprise, etc.

We know long before these young people kill someone, but don't do a damn thing to prevent it. Then you don't help them and their first encounter with police as an adult is after they've killed someone.

I don't think people like YOU get it.

I completely agree with you. I think mental health care in schools should be a primary focus. Why don’t you think I get it?

Yeah, because the schools have done such a good job of identifying kids who are likely to go on a shooting rampage.

Ohh you’re right. We should just not do anything cause things are so great as they are. Good call!

How about this: Abolish government schools, government universities, all gun-free zones and allow everyone to conceal carry.

 

[Slade3200]

See you use another faux argument. I never said it would stop ALL mass gun murders. You are clearly not interested in having an honest debate as you make up shit to debate that I neither said nor implied. I’m not going to waste anymore time correcting your dishonesty. Perhaps we can pick up the debate some other time once you’ve grown up a bit.

That’s not what you’re pissed about. You’re pissed because I pointed out the many flaws in your proposal.

If your suggestion isn’t going to stop mass shootings, then why bother to inconvenience all other gun owners in the country if it isn’t going to solve anything?

See, the Democrat party also know their proposals won’t stop anything either. And when it doesn’t, on to the next set of laws that will have the same results. In the end, we will be stuck with a bunch of laws that don’t accomplish anything that we will never be able to get rid of. What it will do is make purchasing and keeping a firearm such a hassle, such a problem, and likely such an expense that most law abiding people will just not deal with it and remain unarmed.

It’s all part of the big plan.

How do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.

Get it?

No kid can buy a handgun now


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I was talking about a college kid but but as you said young kids can’t buy now.. thank god. A good law that’s not covered in the constitution wouldn’t you agree?

I have no problem with anyone who has not reached the age of majority being denied access to anything

Never have

But that has nothing to do with what adults should be able to do.

You’re right but it does have to do with what we consider constitutional or not.

 

[bripat9643]

Then tell me what is the purpose of registering a car.

If you don't know I'll tell you

You have to register a car primarily so the state can tax you.

Since there is no legal way to put an excise tax on guns what is the purpose of registering them?

Let’s keep going... Why are licenses given for cars?

They are not. Anyone can own a car.

The license is to operate the car on public roads, which is not a right.

But, if the aim is to make sure we have people trained to safely use arms, we can accomplish that goal without the need for licensing.

I, and many like me, SUPPORT education in the safe and effective use of arms. Why wouldn't we?

.

You should support gun safety, we all should. How do you support it and promote more people to partake?

Anyone who wants to learn gun safety can take some of excellent courses offered by the NRA

MAybe we should force everyone to take gun safety courses

There ya go... kinda like getting a drivers license huh?

But supposedly you don't support gun control.

 

[Slade3200]

Let’s keep going... Why are licenses given for cars?

Since driving is a privilege and not a right the state can require people to pass a basic competency test before being granted the privilege of driving. The drivers license is proof to law enforcement that you did indeed meet that requirement and have been granted the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads.

There’s the knee jerk again, haha. I’m not talking about rights. I’m talking about cause and effect. You are shifting the argument. First you say that licensing/registration has no practical effects. And then when we point to areas where it has a practical effect you jump to the “Rights” argument. You can do better than that.

I think we all know that licensing is a way to verifying that a person is qualified, capable and responsible enough to hold the legal power of driving a car. It’s done for public safety and law enforcement reasons. Same logic can be used for guns... but but I know, driving isn’t a right and gun ownership is... that’s Not the point!!!!

Driving is not a right
The state can place any stipulations it wants on drivers because it is not a right

There is no analogy that can adequately be used to compare a right to a privilege

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

We aren’t comparing rights to privileges. We are showing cause and effect. You’re twisting the argument. Regulations are either effective or not, that’s the discussion

The second you say things like Drivers need a license why don't gun owners need a license you are indeed comparing a right to ta privilege

Well I’ll be sure not to say that... nor did I say that. The argument was framed differently. Cause and effect

 

[bripat9643]

How do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.

Get it?

What I get is that the kid who mows down people in a mass shooting could be identified and stopped - even helped and their life put back on the right track IF we concentrated on the ROOT OF THE PROBLEM. Watch your local news after a mass shooting. The people that know the shooter will say we knew that was going to happen, it didn't come as a surprise, etc.

We know long before these young people kill someone, but don't do a damn thing to prevent it. Then you don't help them and their first encounter with police as an adult is after they've killed someone.

I don't think people like YOU get it.

I completely agree with you. I think mental health care in schools should be a primary focus. Why don’t you think I get it?

The solution to the problem is NOT background checks. If anyone is asking, then I don't think they get it. the guys buying guns and killing people would pass the background check. Their warning signs are ignored and they have no "history" (having been minors) to check.

People are pissing in the wind on this one. If you're calling the cops on a kid continually; if they're being reported to police; being kicked out of school, then someone needs to get involved ASAP.

Go the child's home; interview the parents; interview the child; give the child an IQ test and a drug test. Determine where the problem is. Use the schools in the evening hours as places to teach parenting skills and one on one / group therapy for parents and children. SOLVE the problem while the kid is young.

BTW: The current method is to give a kid six minutes with a doctor and let them prescribe Ritalin or Adderall and then let the kid begin thinking the police and pills are their parents.

I didn't say background checks were the solution to the problem. I dont think there is A solution that will solve the problem... but there are several things that can be done to help reduce the damage. Background check are one of those things.

We already have background checks for weapons purchased from a dealer at a shop or gun show. We have had killers who did pass the background check and still used those weapons for mass murders.

Most mass shooters have never committed a crime before they went on their shooting rampage.

 

[Slade3200]

Let’s keep going... Why are licenses given for cars?

Owning a car is not a Right. Democrats used Poll Taxes to charge a fee against Blacks for the Right to vote, and it was struck down under the 14th Amendment.

Murdock v Pennsylvania states that you can't be charged a fee to exercise a Right...

That is why licensing gun owners is unConstitutional.

Im so tired of the knee jerk reaction “driving isn’t a right” retort. that has nothing to do with his point which was regarding the effects of licensing and registration

It has everything to do with the point...... and if licensing was such a fix for cars, why do they kill 38,000 people?

Registration does nothing for guns...other than allow politicians to confiscate them...which we have seen all over the world.

Cars kill 38,000 people because they are dangerous. Wanna make an educated guess which way that number would go if there were no regulations? No seat belt laws, no licensing requirements, no speed limits

You mean the speed limits that are not enforced ?

Imagine how how many more wouldn't die in car accidents if all the traffic laws were properly enforced.

As bad as we are at not enforcing traffic laws we are orders of magnitude worse in not enforcing the thousands of gun laws we already have on the books

You’re right enforcement helps. Imagine how many more people would be dead if we had no laws or regulations.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

A person can avoid the background checks and other laws by going through the straw purchase process or buying a stolen firearm off the black market...

Take the Cop shooter that had a record and laws already prevented him from owning a gun, so what new law would have stopped him?

How about Sandy Hook and the fact the mother owned the firearms and was killed, so again what law would have prevented the killings?

How about the Santa Fe, Texas shootings and again what law would have prevented that shooting?

Too many times I read how we need stricter gun control laws but you have laws already that do nothing, so tell me how will those background checks stop the next thug from shooting up a school are trying to kill our kids?

 

[Slade3200]

t

People who are deemed violent and or mentally unstable

That is not at all legal.
That is what you expect in Russia, where anyone who is critical of the government is deemed violent or mentally unstable.
That not how law is supposed to work.
Anyone who is actually violent or mentally unstable should be involuntarily committed.
Preventing them from legally being able to buy a gun does nothing except corrupt the system.
A violent or mentally unstable person can still easily get a gun illegally, or flammables, poisons, explosives, large vehicles, etc.
What you suggest makes no sense, and it totally contrary to a democratic republic.

Who said anything about being critical of government as a disqualifying factor?! You’re injecting that into the conversation.

And what I say makes sense to millions who support gun control measures. Yes, some people will have contacts to get guns on the black market but others won’t and we need to have some safeguards in place so they can’t just walk into any old store and walk out with the power to kill dozens of people in a matter of seconds. Call me crazy if you must

That is silly.
Interjecting suppression of anything or anyone critical of government is EXACTLY what governments ALWAYS do!
Federal gun control is always a guaranteed means of suppressing any dissent, and being able to completely dominate and intimidate the entire population.
That is always the only point of any gun control, and always has been.

What you say your intent is makes no sense to anyone because they never actually thought about it.
They go by hysterical emotions that make no sense at all.
You are suggesting we try to disarm 100% of the non-government population, so that the criminal 0.1% can not just buy a gun from a gun store. And that clearly is ridiculous because the 0.1% who are criminals, already have their guns, and get all then need from drug traffickers from South America, Southeast Asia, the Balkans, etc.
All gun control laws do is disarm the honest people who we need and want to be armed, and all federal gun laws to is create a corrupt federal government that is not even supposed to be passing ANY weapons law at all.

You are crazy.
Obviously anyone too dangerous to allow to walk into a gun store to buy a gun, also can not be allowed in a fertilizer store to buy explosives, to buy gasoline, to buy poisons, etc.
Guns are likely the LEAST dangerous thing people could buy.
With something like ricin, which is easily obtained, one could not only kill thousands, but not even get caught.
It is clear you have NO understanding of technology, society, or common sense.
So it bares repeating, you are crazy is you support federal gun control in any way, shape, or form.

What proves you wrong is the fact that millions, like over half of Americans according to polls, support gun control measures. These are people who are neither in government nor hoping for government to control them. They support it because they feel like it makes them safer so it would do you some good to try and listen with an open mind. You don’t need to agree but at least try and understand their perspective. That way you won’t keep misstating it and sounding like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

They support it because its a generic question. It’s like when they ask people if they would like a cleaner environment? Well duh, how do they expect people to answer?

Giving specifics would greatly reduce those in favor; ask a more honest question like would you like a cleaner environment if it costs you another $700 a year?

Even supporting it generically flies in the face of these wingnuts that call all regulations unconstitutional. I’m not claiming most Americans want to ban guns or even that they support all control measures. Of course they need to be looked at case by case

 

[Slade3200]

I didn't say background checks were the solution to the problem. I dont think there is A solution that will solve the problem... but there are several things that can be done to help reduce the damage. Background check are one of those things.

We already have background checks for weapons purchased from a dealer at a shop or gun show. We have had killers who did pass the background check and still used those weapons for mass murders.

Your right it’s not a full proof system, some get through. Would you do away with the background check system we have or do you think it is doing some good?

Half and half on that.

Are they stopping people not legally allowed to buy a gun to buy one at a dealer? Yes they are. Are they stopping people who are not legally allowed to buy a gun to buy one elsewhere? No it doesn't.

Go to your pharmacist and ask for a bottle of Oxycontin, and he refuses to sell it to you without a prescription. Go to the street and it's ready available.

The question is, did you solve anything by forcing the addict to buy from the street instead of the drug store? No you didn't. Did you stop all law abiding citizens? Yes you did.

So let's say a evil or twisted person wants to commit a mass murder. Do you really think that the inability to buy a firearm at a dealer will make him say "Oh well, I guess I can't do it now!"

London is trying to institute a law that stops people from carrying knives outside of their home. Why? Because knife killings surpassed murders in New York City even with the available guns.

It's the old cliche. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you take a nice middle-class suburb, and create a law that all households must have at least one firearm, you won't change the crime statics one bit. Create a law in lower income neighborhoods that nobody is allowed to own a firearm, the same thing. You won't change the crime statistics one bit.

Some might go find a dealer and get Oxy and others won’t... it’s the others that make a difference in this discussion. The ones that don’t. And with guns unlike drugs, they are literally made as a tool to harm others. So more reason to be more careful

That's funny. Even legal drugs have killed more people than guns.

So what? Cars and cancer has as well. What’s your point?

 

[Slade3200]

I didn't say background checks were the solution to the problem. I dont think there is A solution that will solve the problem... but there are several things that can be done to help reduce the damage. Background check are one of those things.

No, they aren't. The current checks don't stop criminals who simply steal their guns or use straw buyers who can pass any background check. Mass shooters can pass any background check or they too steal their guns....

Background checks are security theater......and the next step to gun registration, which you need to confiscate guns.

You’re right BG checks don’t stop those people. If you think they are useless would you call for eliminating BG checks all together? Let anybody buy any gun from anywhere that wants to sell them?

I definitely would allow people to buy firearms without all the B.S. and background checks.

When you have unstable people, it's usually when they are young. You can identify them, rehabilitate them and there would be no pretext for gun control.

Everybody seems to know how many people are killed by guns in every little shithole from Angola to Zimbabwe, but I'll bet that NONE of them know how other countries deal with unruly kids.

Here, we blame the kid, feed them pills, let the police parent them, and then bitch about it when the kid grows up to be a killer.

I agree we need to work on the mental health and education of our kids. That’s primary. But I also don’t think it smart at all to have zero regulations on guns. responsible people should be buying guns, high risk people shouldn’t. Plain and simple

High risk people should be in jails, prisons, mental health facilities and / or under the care of a responsible person at all times.

Only "responsible" people should be able to buy alcohol by your logic. So should we limit how much a person can drink and if someone buys them a drink, should that buyer be charged with being a straw man purchaser?

As many people die in DUI accidents as do by firearms. Yet, all you have to do is provide proof of age and you can buy all the alcohol you want. So, how come society is not equally outraged by drunks? Shouldn't you have to have a license to drink? The booze the bartender sells might very well be to a guy that just got out of prison on a DUI charge that killed several people.

Can you defend your life with a can of beer? Can you use a can of beer to kill an animal and feed yourself?

I say when someone cannot be trusted to own a firearm, they are a danger under any circumstances. So contain the bad guys and leave our Rights alone.

A person can’t walk into a bar and kill a dozen people in under a minute with alcohol. You seem to be missing the point.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

No, they aren't. The current checks don't stop criminals who simply steal their guns or use straw buyers who can pass any background check. Mass shooters can pass any background check or they too steal their guns....

Background checks are security theater......and the next step to gun registration, which you need to confiscate guns.

You’re right BG checks don’t stop those people. If you think they are useless would you call for eliminating BG checks all together? Let anybody buy any gun from anywhere that wants to sell them?

I definitely would allow people to buy firearms without all the B.S. and background checks.

When you have unstable people, it's usually when they are young. You can identify them, rehabilitate them and there would be no pretext for gun control.

Everybody seems to know how many people are killed by guns in every little shithole from Angola to Zimbabwe, but I'll bet that NONE of them know how other countries deal with unruly kids.

Here, we blame the kid, feed them pills, let the police parent them, and then bitch about it when the kid grows up to be a killer.

I agree we need to work on the mental health and education of our kids. That’s primary. But I also don’t think it smart at all to have zero regulations on guns. responsible people should be buying guns, high risk people shouldn’t. Plain and simple

High risk people should be in jails, prisons, mental health facilities and / or under the care of a responsible person at all times.

Only "responsible" people should be able to buy alcohol by your logic. So should we limit how much a person can drink and if someone buys them a drink, should that buyer be charged with being a straw man purchaser?

As many people die in DUI accidents as do by firearms. Yet, all you have to do is provide proof of age and you can buy all the alcohol you want. So, how come society is not equally outraged by drunks? Shouldn't you have to have a license to drink? The booze the bartender sells might very well be to a guy that just got out of prison on a DUI charge that killed several people.

Can you defend your life with a can of beer? Can you use a can of beer to kill an animal and feed yourself?

I say when someone cannot be trusted to own a firearm, they are a danger under any circumstances. So contain the bad guys and leave our Rights alone.

A person can’t walk into a bar and kill a dozen people in under a minute with alcohol. You seem to be missing the point.

But you can drive into one and kill them quickly...

Remember OKC and remember take guns away lunatics will find other ways to kill either with trucks or box cutters...

 

[Slade3200]

See you use another faux argument. I never said it would stop ALL mass gun murders. You are clearly not interested in having an honest debate as you make up shit to debate that I neither said nor implied. I’m not going to waste anymore time correcting your dishonesty. Perhaps we can pick up the debate some other time once you’ve grown up a bit.

That’s not what you’re pissed about. You’re pissed because I pointed out the many flaws in your proposal.

If your suggestion isn’t going to stop mass shootings, then why bother to inconvenience all other gun owners in the country if it isn’t going to solve anything?

See, the Democrat party also know their proposals won’t stop anything either. And when it doesn’t, on to the next set of laws that will have the same results. In the end, we will be stuck with a bunch of laws that don’t accomplish anything that we will never be able to get rid of. What it will do is make purchasing and keeping a firearm such a hassle, such a problem, and likely such an expense that most law abiding people will just not deal with it and remain unarmed.

It’s all part of the big plan.

How do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.

Get it?

What I get is that the kid who mows down people in a mass shooting could be identified and stopped - even helped and their life put back on the right track IF we concentrated on the ROOT OF THE PROBLEM. Watch your local news after a mass shooting. The people that know the shooter will say we knew that was going to happen, it didn't come as a surprise, etc.

We know long before these young people kill someone, but don't do a damn thing to prevent it. Then you don't help them and their first encounter with police as an adult is after they've killed someone.

I don't think people like YOU get it.

I completely agree with you. I think mental health care in schools should be a primary focus. Why don’t you think I get it?

I don't think that mental health care is ultimately a solution.
I'm not opposed to it, just I see too much evidence that it won't really solve the problems.

How many mental patients had the medication for their condition, and still did the deed? Many. I can think of 3 different examples off the top of my head.

First we need to get back to inherent moral values. I believe it is directly tied to moral relativism, that people believe there..... is no right and wrong to their actions.

Why that's a shock to some on the left wing, I don't know.

Second, I think there is clear evidence that ties mental illness to drug use, and I personally believe that cutting drug use will reduce the mental problems in this country.

Lastly, I think we need to rebuild fundamental social fabric. That means getting rid of sub-groups, and hyphenated Americans. By that I mean, eliminating all the race based laws, where we promote minorities, which neither helps those minorities, and fans the flames of "us vs them".

You say what does that have to do

I see your logic but I don’t think our country is ready for that. Racial tensions are much too high right now so proposing the elimination of civil rights laws is only going to make things worse. Promoting good morals and family values is great but how do you do that?

When I say focus on mental health care and education I’m talking about helping kids at a young age learn how to overcome social struggles. Have an outlet and somebody to talk to who can give them sound advice and coping strategies. Allow them to be heard and acknowledged so they don’t feel isolated and spiral out of control. Community programs so they have something positive to do after school in their community. All these things will help many issues from drug use to violence to criminal activity.

 

[Slade3200]

I didn’t state anything as fact. I’m expressing my opinion and using common sense so when you ask me to prove something that can’t be proven I explain why. I just dont understand how you can argue against the logic that regulations reduce access which reduces firepower which reduces carnage/damage. It’s not rocket science

Again..... you are making a claim with that statement. You are saying.... regulation will reduce access... which will reduce firepower.... which will reduce carnage and damage.

Great. Prove the claim. Can you prove it? No you can not.

That is in fact just opinion. And if we're just arguing opinion vs opinion... then I disagree.

I believe that regulation will affect only those people who obey the regulation. Regulations have unintended consequences.

The strip mall down the street is a perfect example.

View attachment 274457

They have a road that goes behind and mall, and connects to some housing. People were driving fast through the parking lot to get behind the mall. So they installed speed bumps in the parking lot. Well as you can see, there are other ways through the parking lot, and people were just going around the speed bumps.

So then they decided to put in a by pass road. But people were driving fast on that road too. So they put in speed bumps. So people stopped using the by pass, and were driving through the parking lot again.

Now they don't have any speed bumps.

Each time they put in 'regulations' in the parking lot, people found an easy way around them.

What was the solution? Instead of trying to put speed bumps across the entire planet, if someone hits someone, they call the police, and have the person penalized. That's the solution.

Similarly.....

Again, no amount of regulation stopped alcohol during prohibition. None. In fact, by the end of prohibition, it was easier to find alcohol, than it was when it was legal, because not every single corner had a speak easy when it was legal.

Al Capone, had a network that reached from the east coast to the west coast, and from Canada to Mexico, and that didn't include the thousands on thousands of moonshiners throughout the middle of the country.

If someone wanted a drink, it was easy to get. Why didn't the regulations reduce access, and reduce intoxication, and reduce the damage?

Similarly, why has not the regulations on opioids reduced access to opioids, and reduced addiction, and reduced the damage?

By any measure, regulations on drugs have increased, with the only exception of pot.

View attachment 274458

Why have deaths dramatically increased, with all the drug units, drug regulations, drug enforcement personnel?

Because your system..... does.... not..... work. Period. End of story! It simply does not work! Never has, by the way. Never. Not one time in all human history, has your plan worked. Regulations have never stopped anything, or reduced the damage of anything. Never. No example exists.

France, with AK-47s. UK with gangs that are armed with Grenades. How did the Christchurch shootings even happen? Australia has unbelievable tough laws.

How does this happen? Why didn't their far tougher regulations, reduce access? Why didn't it limit the damage?

And by the way, yes the level of violence is lower there, but it was much lower than the US *BEFORE* the regulations against guns were put in place. And by the way, gun violence has gone up recently in those places.

So how do you explain that?

I can explain it. The only people that are affected by gun regulations.... are those that follow the law. Criminals by definition do not follow the law. You can't point to a single example where a person intending to do murder, decided not to because of a gun regulation. No criminal is sitting there "Oh I was going to kill that guy, but that would violate a gun law! So I decided not to".

And if they are not going to follow the law.... then the regulations mean nothing. Just like the regulations on alcohol meant nothing during prohibition, and how regulations on Heroin mean nothing today.

Laws limiting access to guns, will only limit access to the law abiding public. The criminals in society, never followed the laws to begin with, and a law on guns will be equally ignored by them.

I literally just addressed the proof thing and now you’re asking again?!?! I give up

It's funny how I can easily provide contrary proof... but you give up.

Ok, give up. That solves both our problems.

And in the future, just don't make statements that you can't provide actual proof of. Someone will call you out. If not me, someone else will.

I give up because you keep repeating things that I address. I’m all for legalizing drugs, that’s been a pointless war. But completely different than guns.

You do know that drug use and mental illness have causal links, yes?

You want more crazy people going on slaughter sprees?

No I don’t want that. I’m not trying to promote drug use I just think the criminalization of it leads to more problems than not. First of all it funds gangs and fills jails. Legalization gets rid of that plus brings in tax revenue that can be used to help anti drug efforts like education, community programs, rehab, etc

 

[Slade3200]

No I don’t agree... instead of fighting everything with an absolutist attitude and spreading fear of the slippery slope I’d rather see you get on board with ideas to help improve the situation. You spend all your time fighting against everything and not enough presenting better ideas. It’s counterproductive

You think the guys who want regulation are trustworthy after that attempt to end the right permanently via SCOTUS legislation from the bench?

I don't have an absolutist attitude. Every time the gun-grabbers propose a license or registry or other action, I ask them what they are willing give us in return.

If we go through the battery of background and mental health evaluations these fools demand, shouldn't we be deemed safe for any and all firearms?

The answer is a decided NO. They still want to cut us back even AFTER we jump the hoops.

So, I have no reason to believe that the gun-grabbers are acting in good faith. THEY ARE NOT!!!

We can't trust them.

.

You give these so called gun grabbers way too much power and are acting defensively. So instead of working on productive solutions you are defending and demonizing. Again, not a productive way to get things done. Take some power and control and promote what you think is right

Disarming the public isn't something I want done. I think the 2nd Amendment is right. I want you to keep your hands off of it.

Well good for you. I’m not interested in your guns bucko unless your a threat to society, in that case you can fuck off without your guns.

You obviously are interested in my guns because you keep talking about "productive solutions." What kind of "solutions" are those if not gun control?

You seem to have all that figured out. I’m coming for your guns., beware!!!!

 

[Slade3200]

Great questions. Let get a plan in place and answer those. Right now we are stuck in this game of all or nothing. I don’t see why it’s dofficult for the majority of us to agree on the simple notion that responsible people should have guns and high risk people shouldn’t. The first step is to agree on that. Then put a process in place that determines how it’s executed

The first step was for one side to admit that we have an individual right to keep and bear arms.

That first step FAILED MISERABLY!!!

The gun-grabbers made us fight that out in Court, and we barely prevailed in a 5-4 SCOTUS decision.

Those who want regulation have a LONG way to go to earn our trust, would you not agree?

.

No I don’t agree... instead of fighting everything with an absolutist attitude and spreading fear of the slippery slope I’d rather see you get on board with ideas to help improve the situation. You spend all your time fighting against everything and not enough presenting better ideas. It’s counterproductive

Your ideas will only move us closer to totalitarianism. I would rather you shut the fuck up and keep your puerile ideas to yourself.

You don’t want totalitarianism but you want me to shut the fuck up huh? You’re funny.

Do you not want socialism but you want the government to run everything as well?

Did I say I want the government to make you shut the fuck up? On the other hand, leftwingers are always using government to shut down the speech of their critics.

Stupid people should keep their mouths shut. I think everyone agrees on that.

Yes I do agree. Please lead by example