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.
So apparently you're sane enough to own them without hurting people. But why do you need them?
But in many instances others were entirely preventable.
The Happy Land fire would've been less devastating if the building was up to code and used in a proper manner. Again, not preventable 100%, but some lives could've been saved.
I don’t need them. I want them. No one needs 500-1,000 HP cars on public streets. No one needs alcohol despite its much terrible cost to society. And there’s no good reason to prevent me from owning them, just as there’s no good reason to prevent some nut from buying a gallon of gasoline. There was no good reason to prevent old Timothy from buying all that fertilizer and diesel fuel. Some people are evil and passing laws about devices and objects might stop a few but isn’t going to stop anyone determined.
Indeed, the Happy Land Fire could have had fewer casualties if they had been up to code. We would also have few murders if we didn’t have overly lenient judges who make recidivism and revolving door violence a curse in big cities. Neglect by our elected officials is not an excuse for punishing the citizenry. We should be voting the clowns out of office.
Seems like you acknowledge that you just made up that bit that I quoted in red, so thats a start.
My solutions are pretty simple.
Enforce the rules in the books already, such as making sure the NICS database is updated in a timely and accurate manner. If not, then persons found to be responsible for not doing so are charged with a felony.
Significantly improve our mental health care in this country.
Significantly improve our educational system.
For the last two, that means stop just throwing money at these politicized entities and do things that actually make sense.
Fair enough. I don't think a person should have a weapon until the database is updated and a person is fully vetted. There's no need to rush it.
I agree that mental health and education need to be improved. What are your thoughts on improving mental health and education aside from just throwing money at them?
Because they can on the magazine, and some people just like semi auto mag fed rifles. Do you think semi autos should be banned ?
"Because they can" isn't a great reason.
I don't think the weapons used in the shootings I referred to should be available to people like those guys. I don't really care about terminology, just common sense.
Do you think someone should just be able to walk into a bar and kill 25 people in under a minute?
Fingerprint- reader firearms would, over a period of time, go a long way towards mitigating gang related violence because most are not lawfully able to posess a firearm.
I am not into suicide prevention. ( There I sad it)
The one off high victim count mass shootings are a different animal. The semi- automatic seems to be the weapon of choice by those into the competition of killing the most people in a small window of time. Obviously such weapons make people feel powerful. And obviously, some of them are among the weakest creatures in the US from a stability standpoint.
Determining who is stable enough to own/ posess such firearms is highly subjective and anything but fool proof. Some countries solved this challenge by requiring certin weapons to be physically stored and used at only approved locations- gun clubs, ranges etc.
How do you retrofit hundreds of millions of guns?
So you don't trust someone with a gun but you trust them enough to leave them walking among civilized people. That doesn't make any sense. They still have access to many, many other weapons besides a gun. I already posted links showing the many signs that were missed concerning the Dayton shooter.
Fingerprint- reader firearms would, over a period of time, go a long way towards mitigating gang related violence because most are not lawfully able to posess a firearm.
I am not into suicide prevention. ( There I sad it)
The one off high victim count mass shootings are a different animal. The semi- automatic seems to be the weapon of choice by those into the competition of killing the most people in a small window of time. Obviously such weapons make people feel powerful. And obviously, some of them are among the weakest creatures in the US from a stability standpoint.
Determining who is stable enough to own/ posess such firearms is highly subjective and anything but fool proof. Some countries solved this challenge by requiring certin weapons to be physically stored and used at only approved locations- gun clubs, ranges etc.
Thanks, appreciate the thoughtful answer.
Fingerprint readers are a good, not too expensive solution.
Yes, suicides obviously go beyond guns. It's easier with guns, but fair enough.
The other is more complicated, but good points that we are able to see what's successful in other countries. The United States is not the only country with people that have these bad intentions.
I don't think the weapons used in the shootings I referred to should be available to people like those guys. I don't really care about terminology, just common sense.
Do you think someone should just be able to walk into a bar and kill 25 people in under a minute?
Terminology is key, if you don't want those types of guns available. That is common sense. You want the AR15 banned okay...let's say it happens. What are you going to do about the millions of other rifles that perform exactly the same as the AR are still out there and available ? You claim to be about common sense but refuse to understand facts.
And no , I don't think anyone should kill anyone and I believe it is against the law to do so. What does your question have to do with it ?
Fair enough. I don't think a person should have a weapon until the database is updated and a person is fully vetted. There's no need to rush it.
I agree that mental health and education need to be improved. What are your thoughts on improving mental health and education aside from just throwing money at them?
I'm saying throwing money at them is NOT the answer just to be clear.
I have my own thoughts on specifics about education like making financial literacy a key component of K-12 because without a solid financial understanding and foundation to act responsibly, it leads to a lot of bad behavior and feeling frustrated. We also need to give teachers more control, I hear way too much about being afraid or not allowed to give kids bad grades. We need to make education more strict in a black and white way, and give kids opportunities to be more focused on what interests them. TONS of kids go to school for business and yet are forced to have a heavy focus on science in school, with very little focus on business. While its very important to understand basic science, the same can be said for business.
As for health care, I don't know. I'm of the belief that we need a more free market approach to health care so we can get the government out of it for the most part. They manipulate the market and cause bubbles with all of their plans and lobbying that is allowed to influence them.
Terminology is key, if you don't want those types of guns available. That is common sense. You want the AR15 banned okay...let's say it happens. What are you going to do about the millions of other rifles that perform exactly the same as the AR are still out there and available ? You claim to be about common sense but refuse to understand facts.
And no , I don't think anyone should kill anyone and I believe it is against the law to do so. What does your question have to do with it ?
I'm not writing policy. So treat the "other rifles that perform exactly the same as the AR" just like the AR. That's common sense without knowing the nuances of their names. Not that hard.
My question has to do with it because in most circumstances that lead to a lot of deaths, groups of people try to find ways to prevent more deaths, but with guns people just wipe their hands of it and say let the chips fall where they may.
No, I do care about those, but things like Cancer, heart disease, car accidents, stroke, pneumonia etc all have very active groups trying to prevent future death related to them.
But I'm not going to walk into Walmart one day and suddenly succumb to Cancer out of nowhere.
People get flu vaccines annually.
Companies offer incentives to lower your health insurance.
Pneumonia vaccines are available for the elderly.
Most people in the country agree about trying to find ways to prevent those deaths.
Regarding guns, half the country is saying, "let's think of some measures to prevent more gun deaths" and the other half is saying, "no we're cool with those."
That last part is not true. We’re not cool with it. I would like to see it zero because I enjoy marksmanship and firearms. I’m sick and tired of hearing that my hobby is a danger. The issue is not you care and I don’t. The issue is that any government that does not trust its citizens to be armed is itself not trustworthy and history has shown how dangerous it is for citizens to be disarmed. People scoff at statements like that but at the same time say Trump is a tyrant and is endangering the country. So we should just sit back and let it happen?
The second issue is that we do have it written into the constitution that the citizens have an individual right to keep and bear arms (Heller and McDonald SCOTUS cases confirmed). Regardless of one’s opinion on firearms, there are serious legal obstacles to just walking in and taking people’s possessions, especially firearms. As a practical matter then, efforts should be focused on things that are achievable. Red Flag laws might be headed in the right direction but NOT the way they’re being used now. There is clear violation of due process and this will eventually also be fought out in the courts. Maryland already has had one person killed as a result of firearm seizure without due process.
The reason I mentioned about other causes of death is that I do not believe that most people who care about gun deaths, care that much about other deaths. Perhaps you do and in that case, I see you as a minority. There are plenty of organizations fighting gun ownership. The NRA and similar are vastly outspent by anti-gun organizations and I mean by probably an order of magnitude. I don’t see vitriol in any other concern over deaths like I do with guns. Too many of the people I encounter simply hate guns, period, and they couldn’t care less about the numbers killed.
I'm not writing policy. So treat the "other rifles that perform exactly the same as the AR" just like the AR. That's common sense without knowing the nuances of their names. Not that hard.
My question has to do with it because in most circumstances that lead to a lot of deaths, groups of people try to find ways to prevent more deaths, but with guns people just wipe their hands of it and say let the chips fall where they may.
So, if you want to be truthful and sound like you are talking with common sense, say you want to ban all semi auto firearms. It's that simple. When you start throwing around names of things you know nothing of ...well you know how that looks. Names and nuances are extremely important if you want to ban things we have a right to own. Any lawyer will tell you that.
The road to preventing these types of things isn't going to a simple solution, because it is a very complex problem. Getting to the root causes is the first step.
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.
