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.
I can go on and on.
We have to be realistic: the guns are out there, there is legitimate reasons to make them and use them.
Do you want to ban/limit/restrict the use of the trucks and automobiles?
The guy on Europe’s Riviera plowed and killed 84 people and wounded more than 200 by just using a truck: he was not a terrorist, he didn’t own that truck.
The problem are not guns, but the people with issues - we need to figure out how to stop those people and help them?
The determined would still be able to devise the plans to kill many people if they have an obsession and a plan without any guns:
improvised explosives, arson, crude biological weapons, chemicals spreading, electrocutions, de-railment, etc, etc - could be even less expensive for them - you don’t even need to own a truck - just steal it.
The OP's thread is not about banning guns, yet somehow we have gotten off the original premise of this debate and it has gravitated into a defense of gun ownership accompanied by the usual proposals for gun control being equated with across-the-board banning of guns.
If you were to read through my previous posts in this thread you would find that I have never advocated the banning of guns. What I have spoken for is finding ways to keep guns out of the hands of (as you put it yourself) "people with issues." I believe that quite a few others in this thread have proposed the same.
Yes, the determined would still be able to devise plans to kill many people, but it behooves us as a civilized society to place as many obstacles in their path as we are able to devise. Identifying "people with issues" and keeping advanced weaponry out of their hands is a good start.
We found a way to place obstacles in the path of terrorists after 9/11 with the formation of the TSA and increased airport security, and we have not (thank G-d) had another 9/11 since then.
We can't just keep wringing our hands and tut-tutting every mass shooting that occurs in this country (practically on a daily basis) that's been committed by someone who had already displayed red flags of emotional instability or who had been brainwashed by hateful screeds. Yet such red flags are complacently ignored. Yes, crime and gang violence are huge problems, too, but we also need to focus on those around us who manage to stay under the radar because we aren't paying attention to their red flags, so that they are unable to strike at citizens (particularly vulnerable children) without warning. These domestic threats should be an additional focus of Homeland Security.
The OP's thread is not about banning guns, yet somehow we have gotten off the original premise of this debate and it has gravitated into a defense of gun ownership accompanied by the usual proposals for gun control being equated with across-the-board banning of guns.
Actually, yes taxes and excessive "licensing fees" have already been attempted by several cities in the US in an attempt to enact a defacto ban.
Other ways have included requiring licensing and then....not issuing licenses or only a few to people with connections.
These were tricks stolen from the same playbook that included poll taxes which were absolutely intended to work as a "ban" even if they weren't 100% effective, they removed a huge portion of black voters.
1. Why........because the government is famous for taxing then wasting the money! There is no parallel to more taxes = safer country.
2. If you are a nutjob looking to shoot up a school, theater or grocery store an extra tax certainly isn't going to make you contemplate anything. Do alcoholics look at the liquor tax and then cut down their drinking? Nope.
3. Do you realize how many guns are out there? They rarely go "bad" so as generations age out those guns are again back on the market. Gun stores couldn't possibly handle that many "consignment" sales. That would be like saying cars can only be sold through dealers, never individual sales.
Your 3 reasons have no basis in reality. BTW I'm not a gun guy but am smart enough to recognize failed tax systems that won't do anything but cost honest people money with no safety improvements.
1: Wasting money is a subjective matter. Taxes pay for the police.
2: Alcohol taxes are minuscule compared to tobacco taxes, which have had an effect.
3: Somehow or other, (don't ask me how), the gun dealers managed to sell all the guns in the first place.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 05-30-2022 at 01:57 PM..
Reason: Removed snark. Please don't post snarky remarks in Great Debates. Thanks.
Actually, yes taxes and excessive "licensing fees" have already been attempted by several cities in the US in an attempt to enact a defacto ban.
Other ways have included requiring licensing and then....not issuing licenses or only a few to people with connections.
These were tricks stolen from the same playbook that included poll taxes which were absolutely intended to work as a "ban" even if they weren't 100% effective, they removed a huge portion of black voters.
That sums it up, exactly! If, by some chance, the legislators don't want to face a Constitutional question, they simply tax gun ownership out of existence. Can't discharge a gun, without ammunition, and can't afford it, if it's $3-400/box..........due to a $250 tax on each box.
The most significant decision involving federalism that was handed down during the October 1995 Term--indeed, during the last several Terms--was the Court's landmark ruling in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida, 116 S. Ct. 1114 (1996). In Seminole, the Court held that, in light of the "background principle" of sovereign immunity that underlay the Eleventh Amendment, Congress has no power under the Commerce Clauses of Article I of the Constitution to subject the States to citizen suits in federal court without their consent.
Does the picture of the kid holding the shotgun trigger you? You do know that is nothing but a shotgun. Called a Bullpup. Yes, futuristic looking for sure but no different then picking up your grandfathers 12-ga used for shooting birds. I would rather kids understand the importance of safe handling of firearms and know the dangers of not using them correctly. Better this than curiosity kick in at some point when they see a weapon in a friends home and want to play with it. I'm sorry this triggers you but in reality this kid is doing nothing wrong.
1: Wasting money is a subjective matter. Taxes pay for the police.
2: Alcohol taxes are minuscule compared to tobacco taxes, which have had an effect.
3: Somehow or other, (don't ask me how), the gun dealers managed to sell all the guns in the first place.
Taxes pay for the police? But you are taxing on a federal level (nationwide "ammo" tax) so that won't trickle down to local PD.
Tobacco, people are quitting because they finally realized those things kill you! Diehard smokers are still buying their cartons of Marlboros
Gun dealers sold guns over the last 50+ years. Your idea is to bring all of those gun sales back to the same network of dealers. So like cars, local Chevy dealer has been in business 40 years, now imagine the nightmare of bringing every car they sold in that 40 years back to the dealer to be resold as a used car. It wouldn't work, just like expecting gun stores to absorb all the used inventory out there so they can resell it.
Imagine Bob's Guns sold 1,000 guns a year for 25 years. Now you expect him to resell those 25,000 guns again in addition to his new inventory. Sure they don't have to be done all at once but that would cut into his new gun sales (and profits) and simply overwhelm the store. Again unrealistic just like "ammo tax" is going to save a single life.
Does the picture of the kid holding the shotgun trigger you? You do know that is nothing but a shotgun. Called a Bullpup. Yes, futuristic looking for sure but no different then picking up your grandfathers 12-ga used for shooting birds. I would rather kids understand the importance of safe handling of firearms and know the dangers of not using them correctly. Better this than curiosity kick in at some point when they see a weapon in a friends home and want to play with it. I'm sorry this triggers you but in reality this kid is doing nothing wrong.
In bolded I agree 100%. I would be 100% a-okay with tax dollars going towards education. My children were exposed to firearms/hunting at a very young age. Gun safety was not a taboo topic. I didn't have firearms open and displayed other than some blackpowder rifles I had hanging on the wall. However they witnessed me get ready to go hunting, clean them and put them away. They asked questions and I answered them, showed them how they worked and their purpose. I made sure to take the mystique out of them and address their curiosity. When the time came I felt they were mature enough to take shooting seriously they were taught and took firearm safety classes. Even though my daughter doesn't hunt, she took the MT hunter safety course with all of us. My kids, however, didn't start with anything more than a single shot .22.
I joined a shooting club when I was I think 13 years old. If I recall there were sign-ups and stuff at school. It was .22 match old school competitive shooting with the leather jacket w/buckle wraps.. the whole 9 yards. Slow fire prone, sitting, kneeling standing. Safety, safety, safety, safety. I thoroughly enjoyed it but couldn't keep with it because of my family shart-show. I also took hunter safety before I began hunting even it was just small game.
I wish there were still school sponsored shooting clubs or other educational outlets for youth. Good ones- proper ones. One thing I have noticed lately are a lot of youth being taught pretty poorly by their parents or God forbid- their peers. There is a spot behind me on BLM land that is the local 'shoot 'em up spot'. I've occasionally gone up there to shoot and turned around and drove out when I saw little tikes handling firearms that I would not in A MILLION YEARS let them do. There is no shooting discipline and I fully question the rationales of those parents decisions. To each his own but that's not how I would want my children to be taught.
Even still I know no amount of education will stop say an Adam Lanza from a rampage. That was a parenting issue. All of the warning signs were flashing RED RED RED with a young man obsessed with firearms, mass murder etc. His mom was a fervent firearm owner and seemingly attempted 'bonding' through their recreational use. Maybe had their been a mandatory educational component somebody could have identified something was terribly wrong and alerted? Who knows. The arguments for or against 'red flag' reporting are still ongoing.
The report says access to assault weapons with high capacity magazines “did play a major role” in the Sandy Hook massacre, alongside inadequate and uncoordinated mental health services and Adam Lanza’s extreme preoccupation with violence. His mother, it notes, “seemed unaware of any potential detrimental impact of providing unfettered access to firearms.”
Frankly I think someone like Adam Lanza needed to be institutionalized based on his mental health issues. My wife has worked with troubled youths who frankly needed the same. Heck I've seen youths in Scouting that I wouldn't let own a BB gun let alone have any access to firearms. I've had my head ripped off by angry scout parents when I mentioned behavioral issues that concerned me- I'm wrong, it's none of my business- blah, blah.
I don't know. Wish it were easier to figure all this out.
Threerun: "I don't know. Wish it were easier to figure all this out."
I am pro 2A but at the same time something needs to be done. Not sure going back from 18-21 to purchase a firearm will really stop these but I guess it could reduce some of them. But at the same time how can we ask an 18 year old to join the military and die for their country but you cannot purchase and own your own firearm? No easy answer but we need to figure something out. Take the most extreme on both sides and throw them out of the equation. Then take the more moderates that are left and bring them together in hopes of finding some answers.
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.
There is a spot behind me on BLM land that is the local 'shoot 'em up spot'. I've occasionally gone up there to shoot and turned around and drove out when I saw little tikes handling firearms that I would not in A MILLION YEARS let them do. There is no shooting discipline and I fully question the rationales of those parents decisions. To each his own but that's not how I would want my children to be taught. 