America's unique gun violence (illegal, weapons, regime, how much)
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.
It should not be regulated, it should be a FEDERAL CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO OWN IT, AND A CRIMINAL FELONY TO MOUNT IT TO ANY WEAPON. ENSURE, SUCH PERSON(S) WHO HAS IT, MAKES IT, SELL IT OR GIVE IT AWAY, OR POSSESSES IT BY ANY MEANS, IS PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW, WITH A "MANDATORY" 25 YRS WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE.
Last edited by Chance and Change; 10-05-2017 at 03:01 PM..
A) The second amendment was and says it was for militia's.
B) They had no way of knowing how firepower changed over the years.
C) If the second amendment is so " sacred " then why are there ANY regulations at all? Don't the current US gun control laws fly in the face of it?
D) following an amendment written in the 18th century about 18th century technology in the 21st century is madness.
Thats a false and inaccurate interpretation you and many people make. Nowhere in the amendment does it mention a specific gun like a musket. Are you seriously trying to say that the writers of the amendment assumed that they were in a complete and total stalemate in terms of advances of technology and manufacturing? While nobody could imagine the type of weapon produced 200 years from then or from now, they wrote it about the concept of being armed, not the specific tools used to be considered armed. Being well armed implies that you have countermeasures that are adequate to protect you from what the other guy has.
Correct, I think that the only legal guns should be single-shot bolt-action rifles, revolvers, and double-barrel shotguns.<>
I have to ask, what do you have against single barrel shotguns?
I won't even ask you to define a single shot bolt-action rifle.
So I guess my historical muzzle loaders have to be scrapped?
Correct, I think that the only legal guns should be single-shot bolt-action rifles, revolvers, and double-barrel shotguns. I think this should've been put into place 50 years ago.
And any decently skilled hunter/marksman with a bolt action rifle from the same place Paddock was shooting from would have been able to kill a lot of people, especially since he was using a bipod. Put a bolt action .308 on a bipod with a good quality scope and your targets are huddled together by the thousands in a very small space? The guy wanted to fire bullets into a big crowd, and that is a target rich, easy shot kinda thing.
Look what Charles Whitman pulled off from similar distances, with a bolt action rifle, where the people he was shooting at were far fewer in number, much more spread out and under/behind a great deal more cover and concealment.
It is the psycho, not the tool, that does the killing. Punishing the rest of the nation for what one sociopath does is both absurd and tyrannical.
Derek Hunter came up with a good analogy for this thinking today in his column (paraphrasing) - a family down the street has 2 children that are severely physically abused by their father. He abuses them to the point he kills them. This is horrific, we are all outraged and saddened. Next day, two police and some folks from social services show up at your house because it is known that you have two kids. he law has decided that in order to prevent any more child abuse like what happened down the street, your kids will now be monitored weekly without your consent, you are to undergo weekly psych evals, and the police and social services can enter and search your home any time they please. The justification is that this will stop any child abuse before it can happen, and isn't that worth you having your rights under the 4th Amendment and those as a parent infringed upon?
A sociopath did a bad thing, so the remedy is to infringe upon everyone else's rights, none of whom did what this person did? Guilt by association writ large, sentence carried out via bureaucratic thuggery?
I have to ask, what do you have against single barrel shotguns?
I won't even ask you to define a single shot bolt-action rifle.
So I guess my historical muzzle loaders have to be scrapped?
And any decently skilled hunter/marksman with a bolt action rifle from the same place Paddock was shooting from would have been able to kill a lot of people, especially since he was using a bipod.
Shooting 400-something people with a single-shot rifle is going to take far, far more time.
If he went out purchased a huge four wheel drive, lift kit, pushbars etc.... Didn't appear to me there would have been anything preventing him from driving right into a crowd of 22K people. How severe would that be?
Whether it's a box cutter, truck, fertilizer/diesel fuel or a gun the effectiveness of these incidents are not driven by the object used. It's driven by the planning, opportunity and to some degree fate. If someone wants to kill a lot of people their only limitations is their imagination.
Why is it so hard for the U.S. to be different in policy from other countries around the world? So much so, that we now must adopt, their policies on, just about everything or do we think we see greener pastures?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno
Because their policies work. I am interested in seeing the lives of Americans improve. If that means copying UK gun laws then so be it.
Keep looking at that all the while know we don't have that (yet) in the U.S. and I should not need to say, why that is ...
We can not do anything about Bobby Joe and Betty Sue, shooting one another, but we can do something to prevent, becoming like all the other countries around the globe that are waking up to that and as citizens they can do nothing about it. They are dependent on the decision makers of their country, so here we are ...
We want to put a gun in Syrian citizen hands and say go shoot 'em, but in the same breath, we want to take away our guns?
Those all involved large groups of shooters, in the hundreds or thousands.
You seem to be missing the point here.
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.
While nobody could imagine the type of weapon produced 200 years from then or from now, they wrote it about the concept of being armed, not the specific tools used to be considered armed. Being well armed implies that you have countermeasures that are adequate to protect you from what the other guy has.
