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.
Of course it’s both, but what solution other than a total ban would work? And if it’s a total ban it must be worldwide because our neighbors to the south would love to get a new revenue stream since so many states are hurting their marijuana sales.
Their guns that they use to slaughter people come from the US.
So why wasn't this research done back in 2010-2012 when the Senate was composed of 60 Democrats, the majority of members of the House were Democrats, and the President was a Democrat? Democrats like to TALK about gun control, but they take about the same amount of action as Republicans concerning the issue.
I'm not giving anyone a pass just because they have a D after their name instead of an R.
Their guns that they use to slaughter people come from the US.
No they don't. If you are talking about Mexico, a lot of their guns come up illegally from South, and Central America. Often they are military surplus.
Their guns that they use to slaughter people come from the US.
And they’d still come from the US and Russia and wherever else they get them. People will never voluntarily give up their guns in this country. It’s so logical I don’t know why it even needs to be said.
Do you see everything in black and white terms? There are a lot of things that can be done other than 'ban guns.'
Register guns, gun insurance mandatory, ban military grade weapons for use by civilians.
I like those three options you listed, but instead of banning military grade weapons, maybe tax them (or tax them more if they already are)? I know that doesn’t solve the black market problem, but keep a database for who have these types of weapons so they can be specifically taxed. Or maybe the NRA can setup something similar.
Then use those funds to help beef up security in GFZs or other potential targets. Give those opportunities to ex-military or ex-cops, so they can earn some additional income and they’ll be already prepared for these situations.
Throwing some ideas out there.
The insecure dw...sorry, hardcore gun “enthusiasts” can keep their arsenal. Everyone concedes something.
The only thing I'm tired of hearing about (which goes for the terrorist attacks, too) is the kumbaya, "We can't let this change who we are," "candlelight vigils," "My heart goes out to," "put the balloons/flowers/cards/teddy bears" in a pile at the scene, "first responders did an excellent job," etc., sentiments. I'm also tired of hearing, "The FBI had the guy on their radar." "The shooter/bomber/terrorist had some kind of mental defect," but "Mom/dad/teacher/Susie down the block /brother Mohammed didn't expect him to do THIS!" And my favorite (NOT), nobody who lived with them knew anything about the bombs/guns/knives/rants on a website and are not charged with a crime. You want people to start reporting more, automatically arrest the people who lived with them, too.
Just give me one news report on any attack where the opinion jockey doing the news says something bad about someone other than the perp or they put a family member on TV who says they're going to kill the b*****d and their family. I think the news people would wet their pants.
IMO, it is about unrecognized or unidentified mental health issues
Fine. What are we doing to ensure that mental health care is accessible to all? What are we doing to de-stigmatize mental health care? What are we doing to ensure mental health parity for health insurance? What are we doing to help people with mental health issues recover so they can become healthy, contributing members of the community?
*crickets*
Quote:
Our culture can create the tools needed to kill dozens within a few seconds but cannot see crazy behavior.
And yet you think there's nothing wrong with a culture that creates tools needed to kill dozens within a few seconds? Why does the general public need access to these "tools"? What purpose does it serve for a private citizen to own automatic weapons not related to hunting, or to build arsenals of ammunition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
What would you propose that would stop criminals from breaking the law while not affecting the law abiding gun owner unfairly?
I don't break the law by deliberately hitting other cars or people with my car, yet I must have car insurance. I must register my car with the state, and carry a license that allows me to drive the car. Every four years I must submit to a vision and hearing test to renew that license.
You'd think "the law abiding gun owner" would welcome any and all measures that keep guns and ammunition out of the hands of people who cannot own guns and ammunition without harming other people.
What's that phrase conservatives always spout? "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about."
Funny how the gun community doesn't think it should be applied here.
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.
