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.
Interesting concept, but one I would ultimately reject. Maybe a requirement that all firearms in a home that has a mentaly ill resident be locked in a safe. Theres a compromise.
Apparently you haven't heard the news, any compromise is a charity being bestowed upon you. They will dictate the terms of your compromise, and you will accept them. That's compromise in the eyes of the anti-gun crowd. Especially now that they have a mob of overly emotional knee jerk reactionaries to back them up.
What if they have a mentally ill cousin? Second cousin? Neighbor? Friend? Acquaintance? Would that have been any different? Did the kid even live in that house?
Lets talk about an ammo registry as some have suggested. Being reqiuired to log all ammo purchases in some database. What will that do to stop mass shooting, or any other gun related crime? How will it prevent anything? All it will do is tell us who bought the ammo after the fact, unless you suggest creating some kindof special task force to go out and monitor anyione who buys munitions, I don't see the point.
[quote=WhipperSnapper 88;27382516As I said, you will never prevent some crazy from getting their hands on a gun without first preventing all legaly eligible citizens from owning a gun. The very I dea that it can be prevented is laughable,with all due respect I'm sure.[/quote]
In this case, nonsense. He was denied a purchase he attempted in his own name. Had his mother not owned guns, being a loner, he'd have had no means to get these types of guns.
Lets talk about an ammo registry as some have suggested. Being reqiuired to log all ammo purchases in some database. What will that do to stop mass shooting, or any other gun related crime? How will it prevent anything? All it will do is tell us who bought the ammo after the fact, unless you suggest creating some kindof special task force to go out and monitor anyione who buys munitions, I don't see the point.
The people who murder other people are insane, those folks calling for registering guns and ammo won't make these criminally insane freaks any more sane.
Apparently you haven't heard the news, any compromise is a charity being bestowed upon you. They will dictate the terms of your compromise, and you will accept them. That's compromise in the eyes of the anti-gun crowd. Especially now that they have.
the votes no doubt. Call it KARMA, as the NRA has stated the same thing avoiding any regs for decades.
When the NRA A list folks speak out, using my fav line from "Mississippi Burning", the "Rattlesnakes are starting to commit suicide".
Last night I bet I opened at least 30 of the hundred or so new threads discussing gun control on this board. Not in even one of these did I find a hint of meaningful conversation that displayed any reason or logic from the anti gun people. Instead they are inundated with sheer ignorance and blind stupidity with zero intellect and very little intelligence being displayed. Just a few examples of the ignorance, and I'm para-phrasing:
And the winner, by a landslide.....
How exactly do you expect to accomplish anything with this type of mentality? Do you not agree with president Obama that to create "meaningful action" we must "come together"? all this rhetoric is doing nothing but driving us further apart. Being the NRA member and avid believer in the second amendment that I am, I'm not a real big fan of any kind of new regulations on firearms, however, I DO believe there is a middle ground and room for compromise on both sides of the issue. Things like a national firearms registry, NICS check on all sales public and private, mental health status showing up on the NICS check, mandatory gun safes, regulating high capacity magazines, these are all areas that could be discussed and compromised on. It should also be noted that all of the above are considered "radical" ideas by my fellow pro gun posters on here. It should also be noted that I held these beliefs long before any of the recent mass shootings because unlike MANY of you, I am capable of keeping my emotions in check, and don't let the latest tragedy influence my political convictions.
One thing I am certain of though, is that with all the mud-slinging school yard bull**** being flung around between both sides, this "meaningful action and change" will never happen. One side starts it and the other side either clams up or throws it right back. So heres your chance, I've given you a baseline to start a real conversation, let's see if we can all be adults here and handle it.
P.S.
I would also like to point out that I have the capacity to realise that no matter how many laws or regulations that you pass, short of banning guns on a world wide level and rounding them all up and melting them down, you will never ever be able to completely prevent this type of thing from happening.
Which, feel free to entertain the notion of banning guns all you want, but with 300,000,000 privately owned guns in this country alone,good luck with that.
The problem is you can't have a serious discussion with the mentally insane. gun nuts are crazy. They have crazy views about the world. They live in a constant state of fear. They have these fantasies that they are going to fight the government, or fight marauding bands of urban criminals who are they are terrified will riot.
Many are conspiracy theorists, and racists who are ruled by fear.
Here is my solution, people can have guns but high powered guns should no longer be sold. For the high powered guns already out there, the owners should be offered a lot of money to voluntarily give them up.
The ones that don't want to give up their high powered guns, those guns should be grand fathered in with the express understanding that if one of those guns is used in a crime the owner is going to jail and will face stiff financial penalties.
Every gun produced should be tracked. Gun manufacturers should be held personally accountable for every gun they make.
Every gun sold by sellers should be tracked and those sellers should be held personally accountable for every gun they sell
Every gun owner should have to take training classes, pay higher taxes, it should be made known the more guns you own the more training the more the police will look over your weapons and the higher taxes and fees.
But the biggest change is to focus on stigmatizing owning high powered guns as the lunatic fringe.
The other is to stigmatize owning multiple guns as the lunatic fringe.
With these steps in place eventually fewer and fewer people will buy guns and over a long period of time this problem will lessen.
In this case, nonsense. He was denied a purchase he attempted in his own name. Had his mother not owned guns, being a loner, he'd have had no means to get these types of guns.
Are you kidding? Do you know how many "hot" guns are on the street?
Sure, it isn't a trip to your local 7-11, but it's possible. The fundamental flaw with pretty much everything you folks suggest is that you assume that criminals are no more determined to carry out their crimes than the average citizen is to carry out his legitimate business. Which is why 90% of what you propose barely slows down criminals, while stopping much larger numbers of people who simply aren't as determined to own guns, because they don't intend to go around shooting people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
Lets talk about an ammo registry as some have suggested. Being reqiuired to log all ammo purchases in some database. What will that do to stop mass shooting, or any other gun related crime? How will it prevent anything? All it will do is tell us who bought the ammo after the fact, unless you suggest creating some kindof special task force to go out and monitor anyione who buys munitions, I don't see the point.
Completely ineffective. Focusing on ammo is only useful when trying to do things behind the public's back. Any regulation is going to be a thousand times more effect on a larger $300-1000 machine than the hundreds or thousands of $0.25 bullets that it can fire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn
the votes no doubt. Call it KARMA, as the NRA has stated the same thing avoiding any regs for decades.
When the NRA A list folks speak out, using my fav line from "Mississippi Burning", the "Rattlesnakes are starting to commit suicide".
Bob. I don't care. I'm not a politician. I'm not interested in getting enough people on my side so I can "win" a fight. All I'm trying to do here is discuss an issue on philosophical grounds.
You keep going on about this. Prevent ideas, explain why they'll be effective, and we'll argue. I'm not interested in a pissing contest.
How exactly do you expect to accomplish anything with this type of mentality? Do you not agree with president Obama that to create "meaningful action" we must "come together"?
And where it the intelligent discourse from the gun lovers? The only "meaningful action" you guys propose is, "let's put even more guns out there into the hands of everyone and their dog." That's ALL you have.
We're not going to be intimidated by you. Maybe you guys are willing to be callous and flippant about the prospect of kids and teachers slaughtered in schools, but the rest of us are not willing to accept it as the price for our "right" to buy 50 high-powered semi-automatic weapons with no background check.
We're going to push through some common sense reforms, like not allowing people to buy these weapons with no background checks at gun shows. That alone is a start. Another is to revamp psychiatric and mental health screenings and infrastructure and integrate it into gun purchases and ownership. Maybe a third will be to have specially trained and armed officers in schools, like they do in Israel. We can pursue an "all of the above" strategy on this.
And on that note, we're going to look to all of the other first-world nations that seem to have been able to get this right and therefore have a fraction of our homicide rate. We'll learn from them.
What we won't do is side with you in supporting the status quo, which is all we can ever expect from you.
In this case, nonsense. He was denied a purchase he attempted in his own name. Had his mother not owned guns, being a loner, he'd have had no means to get these types of guns.
As the media has constantly made a point of saying, his mother LEGALY purchased and owned those firearms, so are you suggesting we prevent legaly eligible citizens from owning firearms? For the third time, nothing short of that will completely prevent these things from happening.
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.
