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.
Yes, why don't we look Into what Australia has done in limiting gun violence? How about not allowing private citizens to own hollow points, armor piercing, or frangible rounds? Reduce the size of magazines. How about if your gun was stolen or lost and used in a crime you should be penalized for not ensuring it was better locked up?
Do you know anything about hollow points?
Let me tell you a basic fact. If I shoot someone in self defense and that round exits their body and goes into someone else, I go to jail.
If any of your guns go "missing," it's a $5000 fine if you report it, $25000 fine if you don't and the govt recovers it anywhere other than in your possession. If you sell any of your guns and you doubt have a bill of sale as a completed background screening, that's $5000 fee. You pay an annual fee that goes up for each additional gun you own. If you want an arsenal, then you better be ready to pay for that hobby every year.
.
And then you wonder why responsible gun owners refuse to budge on gun legislation?
You first comments here would penalize me the victim of a crime. If I leave my car running outside a convenience store and someone steals if it's used to commit a criminal act I bear responsibility for that. If a leave a gun on toilet seat and someone uses it to commit a criminal act I bear responsibility for that. If some breaks into my home and steals eith my car or gone that is the responsibility of the criminal.
As far as your last comment your intention is to make it impossible to own a gun.
The compromise I have offered is reasonable, it accomplishes the goal of background checks. If you want to further this discussion you are going to have to come up with something reasonable and that includes an offer for something I want.
This is typical "inside the box" thinking. It's time to take the Red Pill and start understanding there's a whole lot of information that we'll never hear about from mainstream media outlets.
No we’re not statistically U.S whites commit 3 times the murders of Europeans as a whole. America without black people are still commuting an average of 3.5 murders per 100,000. While Europe is betweeen 0.7-1.0.
For 2015 the FBI lists 2,897 murders committed by whites, note that includes Hispanics.
The white population is about 200 million(excluding Hispanics) so that is murder rate of about 1.4, I'm not sure where you obtain data that splits Hipanics off for the murders but that would lower it even more.
The FBI also puts the murder totals for blacks at 2,934 for 2015. With 40 million residents that's a rate of 7.3
Last edited by thecoalman; 10-03-2017 at 05:11 AM..
Leftists, let's get real: put forward a sensible gun control law that would actually stop most of these attacks, and I'd get on board. But, as it stands now, the laws proposed by many on the left would do nothing more than harm the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves, not doing anything to stop the mentally insane (but undiagnosed) from going on killing sprees like this. I've said before that I'd be in favor of a control scheme where individuals had to submit to some kind of inexpensive psych evaluation, for which the failure to "pass" would result in a temporary prohibition on being able to purchase firearms. I write, temporary, because only a judge would have the ability to issue a permanent injunction on owning a firearm based on mental instability. But the prosecution/state would only have a finite amount of time to bring a case trying to take away someone's right to possess/own a firearm based on mental instability/results of psych exam. If they take too long to act, the temporary hold would automatically be lifted.
Part of the problem is an unwillingness to even discuss it.
I don't really understand why this is a left vs. right issue at all. Don't we all have an interest in making the country a safer place? Why can we not have a rational talk about the best way to make that happen? People who dislike the proposals that have been offered could suggest their own ideas, just as you have done.
Unfortunately, too many people seem to get caught up in the extremes: no guns at all on one side, and no restrictions at all on the other. What's sane, reasonable, and achievable probably lies somewhere in the middle.
The way I understand it is that the round does not go through several walls but instead, drops all its energy upon hitting anything. So one is at less of risk of taking out a friendly in the next room if they shoot through a wall.
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.
