Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That would NOT have stopped the Oregon shooting. Care to try again?
I know, some seem to think that a murderer is going to be deterred by a 10 year sentence when the crime they are about to commit carries life or death. It's really bizarre to witness.
Don't ban guns, but enact a law that if a gun is involved in a shooting, the (responsible) owner is accountable. Can't stop all shootings, but how many times do we hear about a kid getting their hands on a loaded gun, and it goes off, or a psycho or a felon getting their guns from their relative or friend who had them legally?
Since the stance is that "responsible gun owners are not the problem", then holding those who are not responsible seems like it would make a difference. Wouldn't fix all the problems, but it would save lives without trampling on the 2nd.
We already do it with alcohol. If a legal adult serves under-aged kids, and they get in a wreck, the serving adult is held accountable.
Oregon shooting - would not have had an impact. The responsible owner killed themselves. Tell me again how we should hold them accountable?
Sandy Hook shooting - would not have had an impact. The responsible owner was murdered to gain access to her guns. Tell me again how we should hold her accountable?
You're recommending "new" laws that already exist. It is already illegal to leave a firearm where a child can obtain it. The facts are that the parents are rarely prosecuted for breaking this law. Quite frankly, the majority of firearms laws go unenforced for one reason or another. We should address that issue before we start passing more laws that won't be enforced.
Ha, you didn't even read what you quoted. I said if they are not being enforced, or if loopholes are being exploited, then ADDRESS IT.
Again, being disingenuous. I offered up a solution that (as I said) would not end all gun violence, but might make a difference WITHOUT TAKING GUNS OR RIGHTS AWAY.
Rather than make stuff up, why not discuss it. If it's a bad idea to enforce the laws, then come up with something else.
Shhhh. Don't confuse the gun grabbers with facts. They don't play well with reality.
Those of us who are actually part of the "gun culture" as some on the left like to call it are far more knowledgeable about gun laws than they are. However, they don't want to acknowledge that point. Most of them dream of a Utopia where everyone sits around singing Kumbaya and nobody commits violence. The understanding that violence is part of human nature is something that they seem to have a hard time dealing with.
And you can stop a crime by just hugging it out.......
Fewer guns = fewer gun problems. It is as simple as that.
Realistically, in a modern society, what purpose do guns serve?
Personal protection.
Here is roughly 7000 news stories of successful firearm self defense cases.
Each one provides a citation to the local news story the can be verified.
Guns in the hands of the right people save lives.
You're recommending "new" laws that already exist. It is already illegal to leave a firearm where a child can obtain it. The facts are that the parents are rarely prosecuted for breaking this law. Quite frankly, the majority of firearms laws go unenforced for one reason or another. We should address that issue before we start passing more laws that won't be enforced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost
Ha, you didn't even read what you quoted. I said if they are not being enforced, or if loopholes are being exploited, then ADDRESS IT.
Again, being disingenuous. I offered up a solution that (as I said) would not end all gun violence, but might make a difference WITHOUT TAKING GUNS OR RIGHTS AWAY.
Rather than make stuff up, why not discuss it. If it's a bad idea to enforce the laws, then come up with something else.
Umm, he did address what I bolded, which you also said. Current laws (20K of them, +/-) aren't being enforced.
And they won't be.
I'm sorry but the aim of most gun control "proponents" (and you can see it here on this thread) isn't safety, isn't crime control, but, ultimately, outlawing and confiscating all firearms of any type in private hands.
That's the bottom line. It's not said out loud like it used to be, but that aim is still there. To be accomplished one "common sense" regulation at a time.
Who decides who is ineligible? What conditions would preclude someone from owning a firearm?
Is someone who has in the past been on anti depressants disqualified?
How does one go about getting "unflagged" if they dispute the decision?
Do we trust the government to be efficient in flagging and unflagging?
I agree there are certain mental conditions that should disqualify people from buying firearms.
I'm just not sure I trust the government to do the right thing and do it efficiently.
There already (and has been for a long time) such a process. It is referred to as "adjudicated mentally defective". Here is a link to the process: https://www.atf.gov/file/58791/download
I don't think it would help, honestly. Most on the left don't wish to learn anything about guns. Look at the rampant display of ignorance that is shown by gun grabbers in this and other threads. Facts don't matter, and neither does logic. It's all about emotional feel good laws so that they can say they "did something", whether that something actually helps the situation or not.
Plus, doing nothing is better than a lot of the "ideas" being floated now. We already have a lot of poorly written laws on the books.
There already (and has been for a long time) such a process. It is referred to as "adjudicated mentally defective". Here is a link to the process: https://www.atf.gov/file/58791/download
I knew this, I was addressing those that want to disqualify people before they have been adjudicated by the courts.
They want to allow doctors notes to be able to preclude people from owning firearms.
but the DEA wasnt created in the 70's...just RENAMED
its just like the ''war department'' became the "dept of defense'
WHICH CAME FIRST???....
1970's====Nixon coined the term and created the DEA
or
1930's====Harry Anslinger .....The pledge to wage “relentless warfare” on drugs ......Harry Anslinger head of Federal Bureau of Narcotics
it doesnt matter to liberals which came first, all they care about is that republicans are responsible for all the problems in society, and its up the liberals to fix all these problems through the institution if ever larger government, eradicating the constitution, and ending the elections for president and going with a dictator.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
