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.
Again, do you also suggest we get rid of violent crime laws since it doesn't prevent all violent crime? Yes or no.
They can only take names and look for an individual, so he/she doesn't do it to someone else... You are screwed though.
I suggest you be able to defend yourself from all forms of aggression..... Another law isn't going to stop me from kicking the crap out of you! Think about that.
It's called risk management. Do you also suggest we get rid of all laws? What's so special about guns and this logic?
Sure.
I'm all for it.
I think we might ought to enforce the current laws and see if that helps any, but whatever.
I'm all for risk management.
Just don't be super surprised when it doesn't really produce many tangible results as it pertains to people who are determined to hurt others and themselves.
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,
This much may be true,LOL (Proponents are people who are FOR them)
Quote:
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.
How can you possibly know the motivations of others? The motivation of "most" reasonable people is to reduce the gun violence rate in the USA, which is much much much higher than anywhere else in the CIVILIZED world. First you say our only response is to limit guns, so we give suggestions that don't limit guns, and then you deflect and say that is what we meant anyway.
I am a gun-owner. Not one, not two, but MANY of them. I want to protect my rights, and yours. But I also care about the crazy number of innocent people being killed.
Still, all i can get is a deflection when I ask why the people who are FOR guns (you know, the Proponents) are not willing to lead the discussion on this. If you are a proponent, then you'd think you'd be the ones who are most for safety. I'm not talking about your words (you all say it) and I'm not talking about your hidden motivations, because quite frankly I don't know what they are. I am talking about your actions.
You guys changes the goal posts every time someone makes a valid point.
I guess I should ask differently. Are you saying that the price to have the second ammendment is that innocent people will get killed, and that any discussion about it is not worth a single human life? If that's what you are saying, then come out and say it. Otherwise, S[T]FU or engage in a serious discussion aimed at a good outcome.
Right, so get rid of all laws then? Is that what you are saying?
NO, just don't make new ones that won't do anything to cut down on gun crime while adversely effecting the constitutional rights of millions of law abiding citizens.
Triple all current laws that are halfassed enforced.
That'll stop mass shooters in their tracks!
Keeping violent criminals in prison for long periods of time makes it so they create fewer victims. 71% of violent criminals are repeat offenders. Our prison recidivism rate is ridiculous. Our justice system is plea bargain happy in the interest of expedience. We flat out let too many violent people back on to our streets too soon.
This much may be true,LOL (Proponents are people who are FOR them)
How can you possibly know the motivations of others? The motivation of "most" reasonable people is to reduce the gun violence rate in the USA, which is much much much higher than anywhere else in the CIVILIZED world. First you say our only response is to limit guns, so we give suggestions that don't limit guns, and then you deflect and say that is what we meant anyway.
I am a gun-owner. Not one, not two, but MANY of them. I want to protect my rights, and yours. But I also care about the crazy number of innocent people being killed.
Still, all i can get is a deflection when I ask why the people who are FOR guns (you know, the Proponents) are not willing to lead the discussion on this. If you are a proponent, then you'd think you'd be the ones who are most for safety. I'm not talking about your words (you all say it) and I'm not talking about your hidden motivations, because quite frankly I don't know what they are. I am talking about your actions.
You guys changes the goal posts every time someone makes a valid point.
I guess I should ask differently. Are you saying that the price to have the second ammendment is that innocent people will get killed, and that any discussion about it is not worth a single human life? If that's what you are saying, then come out and say it. Otherwise, S[T]FU or engage in a serious discussion aimed at a good outcome.
What goal posts are being changed. You say that laws prosecuting people for lying on 4473, for failing to secure guns, etc. need to be enforced with prosecution and everyone has pretty much agreed with you.
If you don't think the ultimate aim of various gun control groups is banning and confiscation then you haven't been paying attention the last few decades. As I said, it's not said out loud very often but the aim is still there and was written in various groups' mission statements for a long time.
It's just like when the Humane Society claims it isn't anti-hunting but files lawsuits every year over hunting seasons.
The anti-gun groups fix on the "worst gun ever". For a long time it was handguns, specifically so called Saturday Night Specials. They were eventually banned in many states.
Then in some states it was enhanced state background checks, such as in MD for handguns (along with a ballistic profile for every one sold in the State) where the check takes months, even though it was mandated in the legislation to take no more than 10 days.
Currently the "worst gun ever" are the so called assault weapons, which as a gun owner you know don't work any differently than any semi-automatic. They do look scarier, though.
There are a couple legislators in MD who have been trying to enact a $5/round tax on ammunition for years. One of those legislators is now MD Attorney General and stated during the campaign that he would use his office as AG to bypass the legislature in enacting new gun control measures.
Another group of legislators, since the "worst gun ever" assault weapon has been banned in MD, have now set their sights on semi-automatic and pump shotguns They're now the "worst guns ever made".
Stop with that paranoid bs. It would take an incredibly horribly act for us to go that far.
However, how does the rest of the developed world not fall into anarchy without the right to bear arms? What's so special about the 2nd amendment again?
Good luck getting the ketchup back in the bottle. 300 MILLION weapons. Never happen.
A 1/3 or so of those don't even have a serial number. When are you closing down all hunting, shooting sports and starting your door to door searches?
This much may be true,LOL (Proponents are people who are FOR them)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost
How can you possibly know the motivations of others? The motivation of "most" reasonable people is to reduce the gun violence rate in the USA, which is much much much higher than anywhere else in the CIVILIZED world. First you say our only response is to limit guns, so we give suggestions that don't limit guns, and then you deflect and say that is what we meant anyway.
By studying the actions vs. the words. Every single time a "common sense" gun law has been passed, there has been another one right behind it waiting to go. There is never enough for the anti-gun crowd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost
I am a gun-owner. Not one, not two, but MANY of them. I want to protect my rights, and yours. But I also care about the crazy number of innocent people being killed.
If you really, truly cared about the number of innocents being killed, you'd be focusing on what makes people like Lanza and Holmes do the things they do. You'd be focusing on where this country went so morally bankrupt that it is almost acceptable when something like this happens. You'd be focusing on the fact that our politicians and media encourage this sort of thing by their actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost
Still, all i can get is a deflection when I ask why the people who are FOR guns (you know, the Proponents) are not willing to lead the discussion on this. If you are a proponent, then you'd think you'd be the ones who are most for safety. I'm not talking about your words (you all say it) and I'm not talking about your hidden motivations, because quite frankly I don't know what they are. I am talking about your actions.
People who are for guns have been leading the discussion. Every time we bring up something like family values, teaching children the value of human life, or teaching children firearms safety the way that we used to we get shot down by those on the left who hate guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost
You guys changes the goal posts every time someone makes a valid point.
The only changes in the goal post have been on the legal front. Again, every gun law that gets passed has another one waiting for a signature right behind it. In the 90s the Gun Free School Zone Act was passed into law, with the argument that it would "save the children". Since it was passed, school shootings have doubled. Has the anti-gun crowd even once come out and said "Maybe we made a mistake?" Nope, but they come out of the woodwork every single time a psychopath takes advantage of their Child Hunting Preserves in order to say that we haven't gone far enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost
I guess I should ask differently. Are you saying that the price to have the second ammendment is that innocent people will get killed, and that any discussion about it is not worth a single human life? If that's what you are saying, then come out and say it. Otherwise, S[T]FU or engage in a serious discussion aimed at a good outcome.
If there were an honest discussion to be had, we'd be having it. However, gun grabbers don't want an honest discussion. They want to get rid of guns so that we can be more like the rest of the "civilized world". Never mind that the majority of our ancestors left the very countries that the gun grabbers wish to emulate because America was a better place.
If you want a discussion aimed at a good outcome, stop proposing useless laws which do nothing but punish the law abiding. Start looking at the root causes of the violence and address those. Things like childhood abuse, education, the over-prescribing of medications which are known to cause violence. That would be a good place to start.
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.
