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.
Well ya, except even poor white hoods don't have a problem like St Louis or Detroit. I think we know what the problem actually is yet everyone dances around it.
Why do poor whites have a lower crime rate than certain minorities? It should be higher since the census shows the country is still mostly white.
Yeah, I get what you're saying. I lived in a small town in Missouri for a few years. There was a rampant drug problem, but rarely any firearm violence.
Many Asians are poor, yet they don't pick up a firearm.
It's purely cultural. And until we all admit that there is a problem in urban America with certain groups, nothing will ever get fixed.
The fact is that some( and not many, thankfully, we're talking about a tiny fraction of a percentage) people who own guns are going to go crazy or violent and commit a crime with their firearms. Likewise, some people are going to use drugs and commit crimes, use alcohol and commit crimes, or just go crazy and commit crimes. People will make serious errors in driving. Cell phones are a menace to all drivers. Do we ban them in cars? And many elderly or gullible people will be victims of fraud and have their bank accounts wiped out. Do we take away a persons right to handle their own financial affairs at a certain age, say, at 70? Or do we give them annual competency tests and extend that to driving, or give doctors the right to assess whether a person is competent to drive, own firearms, live on their own, vote, pay bills, etc.? Let the DNC advocate that and the AARP and persons with disability advocates would turn on them. It won't happen.
I'd like to have competency and personality tests for all elected officials, along with annual drug tests. It won't happen.
Remember the Second Amendment keeps all the other Amendments viable. Lose that one, the rest fall like dominoes.
But more to the point I support the idea that some guns should not be sold.
* Not on shelves.
* Not at gun shows.
* Not sold under any circumstances except to law enforcement agencies.
I am a gun owner (Ruger Blackhawk), a Viet Nam veteran ('68 Tet Offensive), a Republican who has never voted for a Democrat, a movie-goer who thoroughly enjoyed John Wick, and I support a federal restriction on the types of firearms sold in America.
The federal government should enact the ban - not the states. The ban would include almost all semi-automatic firearms.
I have no hope that my particular vision will ever be enacted, but it is what I would prefer.
What makes you think that lawbreakers (the ones who are causing all the problems with guns) will obey your new laws?
And what makes you think that government would limit its restrictions to only the ones you name here? either now or later?
Vermont is the perfect example of a Utopia. It also clearly shows that gun laws have no effect on crime. Vermont has low crime because most of the residents are white and middle class. This is also the reason why places like Norway, Finland, and Sweden have such low crime. A homogenous population with very little poverty means people get along with one another quite well.
If someone is willing to SHOOT another human being, can we honestly say that some dumb gun law will stop them from getting a gun illegally?
We need to work on fixing culture in urban America. Chicago has a gun problem in "the hood" where poor minorities usually live. You never hear about gun issues in the multi-million dollar neighborhoods. Yet both places have the same gun laws.
Exactly. I would add that there is lots or rural poverty in VT but by and large they hold middle class values. They just don't have much money is all. VT is approx. 95% white and only 1% black with Hispanics & Asians each being a bit more than 1% and the remainder being mixes. Maine's demographics are almost identical and they have almost the identical low violent crime rate as VT. Maine also has plenty of rural poverty.
As has been stated by other posters, it is too politically incorrect to talk about the real nature of gun violence and so they talk about gun laws that they know will have no effect.
I couldn't believe they got rid of the law keeping documentedly mentally ill people from buying guns. That, to me is the ultimate in common sense gun control laws.
It's a good thing you can't believe it, because it didn't happen. The mentally ill are still barred by law from owning guns.
I don't know when people will stop trusting everything the agenda-driven media tells them.
If you'd like me to show you how you've been deceived on this issue, reply to this post and let me know. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time and effort.
That was surprising to me as well. I can't imagine anybody would allow removal of this law if they were personally affected by it.
The law wasn't removed. Mental defects are still barred by law from owning guns. You've been misinformed.
Quote:
People who are FOR guns need to realize that regulations aren't meant to take your guns away
Yes, that is exactly what the regulations are intended to do. There is only one logical conclusion to the theory of gun control, and that is total disarmament, or something very close to it. In every part of the world that has accepted gun control, it started a slow and steady removal of guns from that society. One law was passed, then another, then another, and so on. Look at any part of the world that has taken up gun control. It's happened in the UK, it happened in Australia, and many other places.
Quote:
they are only meant to keep guns from people who never should have them in the first place
There are many people who believe that no one outside of possibly police and military should have access to guns.
Quote:
Shame on the NRA and Congress for resisting what most Americans are asking for....
After Sandy hook, and after 4 years where the issue of gun control has been at the forefront of political discourse, the party that opposes gun control is completely in power, and that party that advocates for gun control is completely out of power. Pretty hard sell to say that the American people want more gun control.
As long as we can track where the guns came from so we can hold people accountable I wouldn't care if you put guns on vending machines.
Imo there just needs to be real consequences for mishandling, accidental gun shootings, reporting your guns stolen too many times.
It's a good thing you can't believe it, because it didn't happen. The mentally ill are still barred by law from owning guns.
I don't know when people will stop trusting everything the agenda-driven media tells them.
If you'd like me to show you how you've been deceived on this issue, reply to this post and let me know. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time and effort.
Anyone court ordered into a mental illness facility is barred from buying or owning a gun.
But that does not extent to those who voluntarily seek help from a pyschiatrisy or psychologist or whatever. As it should be. Otherwise, not only would the state further stigmatize the pursuit of people seeking help from psychologist (maybe it's a woman that was sexually molested as a child, or a man grieving the loss of his 12 year-old son) or psychiatrist, but it could give incentive to some not to seek help on their own if they reason they will forever be barred from buying a gun.
I have always had guns, rifles, shotguns, and pistols. What I can not understand is why anyone, outside law enforcement, needs assault type weapons with large capacity magazines. Those are made to do one thing, inflict a large number of injuries in a short period of time.
That's right, and that is exactly what the Second Amendment relates to. It's a provision with a militaristic purpose; designed to ensure that the State did not have a monopoly on force... That was the entire purpose behind the 2A. In effect, the very kind of guns you are talking about are the ONLY guns relevant to the Second Amendment, pee shooters and hunting guns, not so much.
Quote:
I know the NRA guys will say it is their right, but I can not own an operational cannon, so why should I be able to buy one of these ?
You absolutely can own an operational cannon. Money and paperwork is all it takes.
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.
