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.
...
Why aren't gun owners legally required to carry liability insurance for misuse of their firearms?
Why isn't an interview or mental health exam required? You can't get a gun in Japan without an interview with a police official to ensure mental appropriateness
Because it is a waste of resources. The majority of gun owners will never carry their gun in public. Of the ones that do, the majority will never have to touch it in a conflict. Finally, there are laws against misuse.
Do you want to take an interview before posting your opinion on the internet? Treat all of the natural rights the same.
Because it is a waste of resources. The majority of gun owners will never carry their gun in public. Of the ones that do, the majority will never have to touch it in a conflict. Finally, there are laws against misuse.
Do you want to take an interview before posting your opinion on the internet? Treat all of the natural rights the same.
My opinion won't kill 50+ people at a music concert
I guess you prefer the ostrich in sand approach like the NRA does when it comes to confronting the statistics regarding mass shootings in this country.
Most of the guns used in shootings that don't involve some criminals shooting at each other, gangland style, ARE legally obtained weapons.
So, all the arguments in the world about how ALL the gun owners are law-abiding are lies.
Sure, most of them are, but ALL of them are not and someone's range buddy who has been a responsible, law-abiding citizen for years could suddenly go on a rampage.
Then, he would no longer be "law-abiding," yet the guns he used to kill people were legally obtained.
Whenever people talk about law abiding gun owners,the whole point is that you can't punish the vast majority of a group for something that you think an extremely small percentage of them might do.
Someone in a tweet did, linked a few pages back. We are talking about a tweet with this particular line of discussion. A tweet in reply to a doctor. The person insinuated that legal gun owners aren't killing people/committing crimes. Now we are talking about many, many cases where that is not true.
You are choosing to willfully ignore the global statistics showing the US leading the pack in mass homicides in public places thanks to the unregulated gun culture and legal system in this country.
False. I choose to focus on what drives others to turn to a firearm regardless. See. You can have both firearms and be non violent. I'm living proof of that. So are millions of other firearm owners in this nation. Yet you're convienently ignoring there's something that causes people to do what they do... and don't want to address it. Just the implements they use. Being blissfully ignorant to the fact even if you were to wake up with every firearm gone, you'd have solved Nothing as the scourge will just find another implement to take it's place. To suggest otherwise look at the UK. Ban guns. Knife violence proliferates. Ban knives what's next to go in vain of tragedy for the almighty "safety" of society?
That's your problem with your logic. Not mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chopchop0
Why aren't gun owners legally required to carry liability insurance for misuse of their firearms?
Well, Cuomo went after the insurance company that did just that. And over night to appease herr Cuomo they stopped/cancelled the coverage and policies...
Take it up with Andrew anti gun/NRA Cuomo.
Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chopchop0
Why isn't an interview or mental health exam required? You can't get a gun in Japan without an interview with a police official to ensure mental appropriateness
Too fast and loose and too subjective. Why not institute a mental health exam to enter online forums protest and other forms of free speech?
All it takes is an arbitrator who has a personal motive/agenda to deny.
Want to propose it? I'll deny it.
Want a compromise and institute a "universal background check"? Fine. After I and millions of others pass. I get universal access to firearms. Including machine guns.
That's a fair compromise where both sides of the argument are appeased. Right? Or were you looking for subversion type of compromise?
My opinion won't kill 50+ people at a music concert
I guess you prefer the ostrich in sand approach like the NRA does when it comes to confronting the statistics regarding mass shootings in this country.
But enough of you can enact laws that will disarm people who cannot protect themselves without a firearm. Also, I still attend outdoor concert as well as indoor shows with "lax" security procedures. I know I could be snuffed out at any time but that does not stop me from living my life without any regrets.
If someone surveys me concerning the NRA, I would give a negative mark against them and I am a lifetime member. They have gone soft on fighting for an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chopchop0
I know it may be hard, but try to use some logic here.
My free speech in CD forums isn't depriving anyone of their life misuse a gun will and has.....countless times
Speech can incite violence and has millions of times throughout history. Anything from violence against individuals to the attempted annihilation of populations of people. Could you personally do that? You can't even change my opinion.
But enough of you can enact laws that will disarm people who cannot protect themselves without a firearm. Also, I still attend outdoor concert as well as indoor shows with "lax" security procedures. I know I could be snuffed out at any time but that does not stop me from living my life without any regrets.
If someone surveys me concerning the NRA, I would give a negative mark against them and I am a lifetime member. They have gone soft on fighting for an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
Speech can incite violence and has millions of times throughout history. Anything from violence against individuals to the attempted annihilation of populations of people. Could you personally do that? You can't even change my opinion.
Complete nonsense.
Tell me how you would have "defended" yourself at Vegas?
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.
