Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Blues Man]

Human beings are far too complex for that. People don't follow protocols. You can take two people and put them both under the same conditions and through the same stuff. One will crack up and go nuts. The other with pass with flying colors and shrug it off like nothing. Personally, I don't need the government having some deep psych-ops profile on every tiny detail of my family and life in order to even come close to making that work. Because if they can do that, they can predict my attitudes, likes, preferences, choices, fears, interests and everything else to have total control of my life. I chose not to live in 1984. Bye.

I’m not calling for government run deep psychological ops. A majority of Americans would agree that they dont think mentally unstable people should have guns. So we should determine a set of indicators and criteria that can be used to flag at risk people and then make sure those people dont have easy access to weapons. It’s not a difficult concept to get behind.

I get that you want to protect your guns. Maybe you are a looney tune so you are fighting back against this I don’t know. But most dont think crazy people should have guns. Simple concept

Man, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.

You're not calling for deep psych-ops, yet that is just what it would take to accomplish your aim! There is no threshold definition for what is a "mentally unstable" person is nor set of "indicators" that you can ascribe that fits everyone because they are different for every person. I'm not going to repeat that again. We already have long had laws keeping "crazy people" from having guns. That was the start of my posts! Look what it gets us! Now for like the NINTH time, there IS NO FIXED SET OF INDICATORS you can apply across the board to all people that won't on the one hand let a lot of seemingly otherwise OK reasonable people through who STILL go on to murder others with guns anyway, while at the same time deprive many many good people of their right to own firearms who would not have ever otherwise done anything improper or illegal with them!

End result is that far far more innocent people are always harmed by such efforts than the number of actual people ever usefully stopped by them because the actual percentage of crazed gun murders is such a small number of society and again, the variables change for every person. So politicians wishing to save their careers and idiots like you who want to do "something," invariable always end up going after "assault-style" rifles which only account for less than 1% of gun deaths and only harming a lot of innocent, law abiding people to make it look good and make them feel good and the crimes go on. Meantime, actual gun violence is DOWN.

And if you can't tell whether I'm being reasonable or a "looney tune," well, you've just made my point. Bye. You just want to do something to do something, even if you admit you don't know what to do, don't know if it will be effective, just throwing mud at a wall, just so you can say you did something, and then once the harm is done by another stupid, useless law, it is permanent.

In a free society, there will always be a certain tiny, small number of people who abuse that freedom, and you can't fix or stop that without taking away the freedom of everyone.

I just don’t buy the argument that all these innocent people are being hurt. How are good responsible people being hurt? I own guns, many of my friends own guns. We live in liberal California, it isn’t a problem.

Now let me ask a simple question. Do you really think if we dropped gun regulations and let anybody go into any store and buy a gun and then carry those guns in public... do you really think that would make our communities safer?

Do you really think people who would otherwise not be dangerous, would suddenly become violent criminals and start shooting up any and all places around them?

Go look at General S.L.A. Marshall's study on soldiers in combat. His research OVERWHELMINGLY demonstrates that most humans will naturally try to avoid shooting at the enemy in a combat situation. Most WW2 soldiers simply hid and tried to avoid engaging the enemy.

The military had to create pop-up target training to get soldiers to actually shoot the enemy in combat.

People don't naturally want to kill.

But, don't we already assume everyone we don't know is armed? Hasn't it been that way since the beginning?

.

No I don’t think people will all of a sudden become violent. If that’s how you are interpreting my arguments then you aren’t paying attention.

I for one don’t assume everybody around me is armed and I see many people with crazy tempers that get in fights while drunk where I’m sure glad they aren’t armed during those situations.

Chances are that anyone who gets into drunken bar fights won't be able to legally buy a gun

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Flash]

 

[Flash]

 

[Slade3200]

Background checks and gun control laws wouldn’t stop people like your brother from getting a gun. But it will stop the people who don’t have the phone number of the guy that will sell them a gun at a rest stop.

Except that all drug dealers already have to have guns to protect their illegal profits, so they won't mind at all selling some guns as well and increase their profits a little bit more.
Everyone knows where they can buy an illegal gun.
Several of them have even offered to sell me a machine gun.

No, everyone does not know where to get an illegal gun. Some do and others can find out if they try hard enough. But there are also others who don’t and who are prevented from getting dangerous weapons because we have it regulated

Prove it.

Show me the person who was going to go on a mass shooting spree, or just join in on a normal night in Chicago, who was unable to find a gun, and thus didn't.

Where are these people? I have yet to hear of a single one.

I do know of a woman who owned a gun, but was prohibited by law from carrying it in a restaurant, and a mad man with a gun started shooting people, and all she could do was watch both her mother and father get shot and killed.



So if you don't know the story, Suzanna Hupp was having dinner with her parents, when a crazy nut drove his truck through the front of the store. He started shooting people. Her father attempted to stop the attacker, and was shot. Her mother seeing her husband shot, went after him, and was shot.

The sad part of the story, is that Suzanna owned a weapon, and had the gun in her car, because it wasn't legal for her to carry it with her.

So while people were being slaughtered, the means to defend themselves was in the parking lot on the other side of the gun man.

Just another of hundreds of examples where gun-controller killed people with their evil policies. If anything we should be demanding left-wingers answer for all the deaths they caused, than Trump.

How does one prove something that didn’t happen?

So you are saying the claim you made, which was stated as a fact, is inherently impossible to prove, and therefor just opinion?

Ok. I agree.

I didn’t state anything as fact. I’m expressing my opinion and using common sense so when you ask me to prove something that can’t be proven I explain why. I just dont understand how you can argue against the logic that regulations reduce access which reduces firepower which reduces carnage/damage. It’s not rocket science

 

[Blues Man]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

you forget what happened to all of our cars when we were forced to get licenses!


every car was confiscated!


and then when they forced us to get wedding licenses our brides were all rounded up and taken away!


same thing will happen with guns!

Then tell me what is the purpose of registering a car.

If you don't know I'll tell you

You have to register a car primarily so the state can tax you.

Since there is no legal way to put an excise tax on guns what is the purpose of registering them?

Let’s keep going... Why are licenses given for cars?

Since driving is a privilege and not a right the state can require people to pass a basic competency test before being granted the privilege of driving. The drivers license is proof to law enforcement that you did indeed meet that requirement and have been granted the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads.

There’s the knee jerk again, haha. I’m not talking about rights. I’m talking about cause and effect. You are shifting the argument. First you say that licensing/registration has no practical effects. And then when we point to areas where it has a practical effect you jump to the “Rights” argument. You can do better than that.

I think we all know that licensing is a way to verifying that a person is qualified, capable and responsible enough to hold the legal power of driving a car. It’s done for public safety and law enforcement reasons. Same logic can be used for guns... but but I know, driving isn’t a right and gun ownership is... that’s Not the point!!!!

Driving is not a right
The state can place any stipulations it wants on drivers because it is not a right

There is no analogy that can adequately be used to compare a right to a privilege

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Slade3200]

See you use another faux argument. I never said it would stop ALL mass gun murders. You are clearly not interested in having an honest debate as you make up shit to debate that I neither said nor implied. I’m not going to waste anymore time correcting your dishonesty. Perhaps we can pick up the debate some other time once you’ve grown up a bit.

That’s not what you’re pissed about. You’re pissed because I pointed out the many flaws in your proposal.

If your suggestion isn’t going to stop mass shootings, then why bother to inconvenience all other gun owners in the country if it isn’t going to solve anything?

See, the Democrat party also know their proposals won’t stop anything either. And when it doesn’t, on to the next set of laws that will have the same results. In the end, we will be stuck with a bunch of laws that don’t accomplish anything that we will never be able to get rid of. What it will do is make purchasing and keeping a firearm such a hassle, such a problem, and likely such an expense that most law abiding people will just not deal with it and remain unarmed.

It’s all part of the big plan.

How do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.

Get it?

What I get is that the kid who mows down people in a mass shooting could be identified and stopped - even helped and their life put back on the right track IF we concentrated on the ROOT OF THE PROBLEM. Watch your local news after a mass shooting. The people that know the shooter will say we knew that was going to happen, it didn't come as a surprise, etc.

We know long before these young people kill someone, but don't do a damn thing to prevent it. Then you don't help them and their first encounter with police as an adult is after they've killed someone.

I don't think people like YOU get it.

I completely agree with you. I think mental health care in schools should be a primary focus. Why don’t you think I get it?

The solution to the problem is NOT background checks. If anyone is asking, then I don't think they get it. the guys buying guns and killing people would pass the background check. Their warning signs are ignored and they have no "history" (having been minors) to check.

People are pissing in the wind on this one. If you're calling the cops on a kid continually; if they're being reported to police; being kicked out of school, then someone needs to get involved ASAP.

Go the child's home; interview the parents; interview the child; give the child an IQ test and a drug test. Determine where the problem is. Use the schools in the evening hours as places to teach parenting skills and one on one / group therapy for parents and children. SOLVE the problem while the kid is young.

BTW: The current method is to give a kid six minutes with a doctor and let them prescribe Ritalin or Adderall and then let the kid begin thinking the police and pills are their parents.

I didn't say background checks were the solution to the problem. I dont think there is A solution that will solve the problem... but there are several things that can be done to help reduce the damage. Background check are one of those things.

 

[Slade3200]

Great questions. Let get a plan in place and answer those. Right now we are stuck in this game of all or nothing. I don’t see why it’s dofficult for the majority of us to agree on the simple notion that responsible people should have guns and high risk people shouldn’t. The first step is to agree on that. Then put a process in place that determines how it’s executed

The first step was for one side to admit that we have an individual right to keep and bear arms.

That first step FAILED MISERABLY!!!

The gun-grabbers made us fight that out in Court, and we barely prevailed in a 5-4 SCOTUS decision.

Those who want regulation have a LONG way to go to earn our trust, would you not agree?

.

No I don’t agree... instead of fighting everything with an absolutist attitude and spreading fear of the slippery slope I’d rather see you get on board with ideas to help improve the situation. You spend all your time fighting against everything and not enough presenting better ideas. It’s counterproductive

You think the guys who want regulation are trustworthy after that attempt to end the right permanently via SCOTUS legislation from the bench?

I don't have an absolutist attitude. Every time the gun-grabbers propose a license or registry or other action, I ask them what they are willing give us in return.

If we go through the battery of background and mental health evaluations these fools demand, shouldn't we be deemed safe for any and all firearms?

The answer is a decided NO. They still want to cut us back even AFTER we jump the hoops.

So, I have no reason to believe that the gun-grabbers are acting in good faith. THEY ARE NOT!!!

We can't trust them.

.

You give these so called gun grabbers way too much power and are acting defensively. So instead of working on productive solutions you are defending and demonizing. Again, not a productive way to get things done. Take some power and control and promote what you think is right

Disarming the public isn't something I want done. I think the 2nd Amendment is right. I want you to keep your hands off of it.

Well good for you. I’m not interested in your guns bucko unless your a threat to society, in that case you can fuck off without your guns.

 

[Flash]

You know what's NOT fake news?

Trump said "Take guns first, due process second" as in supports Red Flag
Trump got bumpstocks banned and made 500,000+ plus Americans felons over a hunk of plastic
Trump called and CONGRATULATED Rick Scott for SIGNING gun control in FL
Trump expresses support for stronger background checks

Trump sucks on the 2A, just like any Democrat would.and the Moon Bats should love him for it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Believe it or not, there are some problems that can't be solved.......not even by your precious government.

You want doctors, many who are leftists, to be able to determine if you are capable of exercising your constitutional rights? How about if we apply the same standards to voting? Would you be acceptable of that? What about free speech?

Family, friends, employers? Those people running to the government to get even with you for quitting your job, breaking up with your wife, a disagreement over a game of pool are not spying?

So let's say a family member reported either of these to recent shooters. How is government going to determine if they are mentally incompetent unless they do spy on these people? Just take the word of a family member or what? Or are you suggesting that it's okay to spy on them after they've been reported?

What a silly way to frame it. If a kid told the police that his teacher molested him do you think the police have a right to spy on that teacher?

If a neighbor reports their Muslim neighbors with suspicions that they are building bombs do you think the authorities have the right to spy on the accused?

No, they do not have the right to spy on the teacher in any way that breaches the teacher's rights to be free from government intrusion. They must get a warrant. They have probable cause to get a warrant, but they must go through the process.

Same with the alleged bomb makers.

You seem to want to SKIP that whole pesky warrant process and have anybody make any kind of false claim, including divorcing spouses (especially) and rights get FUCKED RIGHT UP THE ASS!!!!

Quit being a statist authoritarian. DO NOT TRUST GOVERNMENT....EVER!!!! Government is made up of people who do NOT have your interests in mind.

.

i don’t want to skip anything, I want to create and discuss ideas for a good process to implement. You seem to not want to do anything because your scared of the boogeyman and the slippery slope he is on.

It is NOT a boogeyman.
Clearly the federal government is extremely corrupt, and should not be making any weapons laws at all.
If you want gun control laws, that is fine.
But state or local, where everyone has a chance to say something.
Federal laws are impossible to influence or prevent from being totally corrupt.
Just look at the way the feds lied about WMD in Iraq, and murdered over half a million innocent people.
Then there is Waco and Ruby Ridge.
We don't need more federal weapons laws, we need to eliminate ALL federal weapons, drug, or any law that is supposed to be local jurisdiction.

At least you’re consistent at being wrong.

Government has the authority to regulate firearms, to place limits and restrictions on the sale and possession of guns – including the Federal government – as long as those limits and restrictions are consistent with Second Amendment case law.

I agree that SCOTUS jurisprudence indicates that government has the authority to place limits and restrictions.

I do NOT agree that those decisions were correct. They were often made by commies or other statist motherfuckers trying to take power from the people.

Had many of those decisions been made today with the current Court makeup, the "shall not be infringed" language would have been heavily considered.

This is why one should never vote for a Democrat for the white house (even though the dog-shit GOP is not much better).


.

 

[Slade3200]

I’m not calling for government run deep psychological ops. A majority of Americans would agree that they dont think mentally unstable people should have guns. So we should determine a set of indicators and criteria that can be used to flag at risk people and then make sure those people dont have easy access to weapons. It’s not a difficult concept to get behind.

I get that you want to protect your guns. Maybe you are a looney tune so you are fighting back against this I don’t know. But most dont think crazy people should have guns. Simple concept

It’s not a difficult concept to get behind.

It is when you realize that implementing it will lead to all sorts of abuse.....

What criteria? Who decides? How do you appeal? Who pays for the appeal?

Great questions. Let get a plan in place and answer those. Right now we are stuck in this game of all or nothing. I don’t see why it’s dofficult for the majority of us to agree on the simple notion that responsible people should have guns and high risk people shouldn’t. The first step is to agree on that. Then put a process in place that determines how it’s executed

The first step was for one side to admit that we have an individual right to keep and bear arms.

That first step FAILED MISERABLY!!!

The gun-grabbers made us fight that out in Court, and we barely prevailed in a 5-4 SCOTUS decision.

Those who want regulation have a LONG way to go to earn our trust, would you not agree?

.

No I don’t agree... instead of fighting everything with an absolutist attitude and spreading fear of the slippery slope I’d rather see you get on board with ideas to help improve the situation. You spend all your time fighting against everything and not enough presenting better ideas. It’s counterproductive

Your ideas will only move us closer to totalitarianism. I would rather you shut the fuck up and keep your puerile ideas to yourself.

You don’t want totalitarianism but you want me to shut the fuck up huh? You’re funny.

Do you not want socialism but you want the government to run everything as well?

 

[Slade3200]

See you use another faux argument. I never said it would stop ALL mass gun murders. You are clearly not interested in having an honest debate as you make up shit to debate that I neither said nor implied. I’m not going to waste anymore time correcting your dishonesty. Perhaps we can pick up the debate some other time once you’ve grown up a bit.

That’s not what you’re pissed about. You’re pissed because I pointed out the many flaws in your proposal.

If your suggestion isn’t going to stop mass shootings, then why bother to inconvenience all other gun owners in the country if it isn’t going to solve anything?

See, the Democrat party also know their proposals won’t stop anything either. And when it doesn’t, on to the next set of laws that will have the same results. In the end, we will be stuck with a bunch of laws that don’t accomplish anything that we will never be able to get rid of. What it will do is make purchasing and keeping a firearm such a hassle, such a problem, and likely such an expense that most law abiding people will just not deal with it and remain unarmed.

It’s all part of the big plan.

How do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.

Get it?

What I get is that the kid who mows down people in a mass shooting could be identified and stopped - even helped and their life put back on the right track IF we concentrated on the ROOT OF THE PROBLEM. Watch your local news after a mass shooting. The people that know the shooter will say we knew that was going to happen, it didn't come as a surprise, etc.

We know long before these young people kill someone, but don't do a damn thing to prevent it. Then you don't help them and their first encounter with police as an adult is after they've killed someone.

I don't think people like YOU get it.

I completely agree with you. I think mental health care in schools should be a primary focus. Why don’t you think I get it?

Yeah, because the schools have done such a good job of identifying kids who are likely to go on a shooting rampage.

Ohh you’re right. We should just not do anything cause things are so great as they are. Good call!

 

[Slade3200]

What a silly way to frame it. If a kid told the police that his teacher molested him do you think the police have a right to spy on that teacher?

If a neighbor reports their Muslim neighbors with suspicions that they are building bombs do you think the authorities have the right to spy on the accused?

Building bombs and molesting children are crimes. Somebody saying they are a white supremacist or saying they hate Mexicans on social media is not.

Regardless, in order to spy on anybody, you need a surveillance warrant to do that. Image how backlogged our courts would be with 20 million cases of accusations every year.

Then there is the fact that building bombs or molesting children are not constitutional rights. The right to bear arms is. That means the accused is allowed to have their day in court. You simply can't take away a constitutional right without a proper court hearing, and the ability of the accused to appeal decisions ruled against them.

But even if we had the ability to entertain all that, are you going to tell me that will stop all mass gun murders?

See you use another faux argument. I never said it would stop ALL mass gun murders. You are clearly not interested in having an honest debate as you make up shit to debate that I neither said nor implied. I’m not going to waste anymore time correcting your dishonesty. Perhaps we can pick up the debate some other time once you’ve grown up a bit.

That’s not what you’re pissed about. You’re pissed because I pointed out the many flaws in your proposal.

If your suggestion isn’t going to stop mass shootings, then why bother to inconvenience all other gun owners in the country if it isn’t going to solve anything?

See, the Democrat party also know their proposals won’t stop anything either. And when it doesn’t, on to the next set of laws that will have the same results. In the end, we will be stuck with a bunch of laws that don’t accomplish anything that we will never be able to get rid of. What it will do is make purchasing and keeping a firearm such a hassle, such a problem, and likely such an expense that most law abiding people will just not deal with it and remain unarmed.

It’s all part of the big plan.

How do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.

Get it?

We are to the point where there have been so many mass shootings that it's hard to remember. But I don't recall a mass murder where the weapons involved were obtained through "other means" that could have been prevented.

In Sandy Hook, the kid did attempt to buy firearms and was denied with our current system. So he killed his mother and used her weapons instead. In Columbine, the shooters were under age which prevented them from legally buying guns in their names. They used straw purchasers who claim they didn't know the intent of the shooters. While they were strange kids and did have juvenile criminal records, nobody suspected they were capable of anything like what they did.

In these last two shootings, I believe the suspects were allowed to buy guns, just like the kook in the Las Vegas shooting. I also believe most of the shooters in mass murderers didn't have a record either.

The point is there is no way to determine who might do what in most cases. So to say that these initiatives will not stop mass murders, but will make them a little better is hardly worth the inconvenience of the rest of the country.

Well there you go, you are proving my point. Sandy hook guy tried to buy but couldn’t so he had to use what his mom had. What if all the GC deniers had their way and there were no regulations? What if sandy hook guy could have just bought an uzi? How many more kids would be dead?

 

[Slade3200]

What a silly way to frame it. If a kid told the police that his teacher molested him do you think the police have a right to spy on that teacher?

If a neighbor reports their Muslim neighbors with suspicions that they are building bombs do you think the authorities have the right to spy on the accused?

Building bombs and molesting children are crimes. Somebody saying they are a white supremacist or saying they hate Mexicans on social media is not.

Regardless, in order to spy on anybody, you need a surveillance warrant to do that. Image how backlogged our courts would be with 20 million cases of accusations every year.

Then there is the fact that building bombs or molesting children are not constitutional rights. The right to bear arms is. That means the accused is allowed to have their day in court. You simply can't take away a constitutional right without a proper court hearing, and the ability of the accused to appeal decisions ruled against them.

But even if we had the ability to entertain all that, are you going to tell me that will stop all mass gun murders?

See you use another faux argument. I never said it would stop ALL mass gun murders. You are clearly not interested in having an honest debate as you make up shit to debate that I neither said nor implied. I’m not going to waste anymore time correcting your dishonesty. Perhaps we can pick up the debate some other time once you’ve grown up a bit.

That’s not what you’re pissed about. You’re pissed because I pointed out the many flaws in your proposal.

If your suggestion isn’t going to stop mass shootings, then why bother to inconvenience all other gun owners in the country if it isn’t going to solve anything?

See, the Democrat party also know their proposals won’t stop anything either. And when it doesn’t, on to the next set of laws that will have the same results. In the end, we will be stuck with a bunch of laws that don’t accomplish anything that we will never be able to get rid of. What it will do is make purchasing and keeping a firearm such a hassle, such a problem, and likely such an expense that most law abiding people will just not deal with it and remain unarmed.

It’s all part of the big plan.

How do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.

Get it?

No kid can buy a handgun now


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I was talking about a college kid but but as you said young kids can’t buy now.. thank god. A good law that’s not covered in the constitution wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Slade3200]

I’m not calling for government run deep psychological ops. A majority of Americans would agree that they dont think mentally unstable people should have guns. So we should determine a set of indicators and criteria that can be used to flag at risk people and then make sure those people dont have easy access to weapons. It’s not a difficult concept to get behind.

I get that you want to protect your guns. Maybe you are a looney tune so you are fighting back against this I don’t know. But most dont think crazy people should have guns. Simple concept

Man, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.

You're not calling for deep psych-ops, yet that is just what it would take to accomplish your aim! There is no threshold definition for what is a "mentally unstable" person is nor set of "indicators" that you can ascribe that fits everyone because they are different for every person. I'm not going to repeat that again. We already have long had laws keeping "crazy people" from having guns. That was the start of my posts! Look what it gets us! Now for like the NINTH time, there IS NO FIXED SET OF INDICATORS you can apply across the board to all people that won't on the one hand let a lot of seemingly otherwise OK reasonable people through who STILL go on to murder others with guns anyway, while at the same time deprive many many good people of their right to own firearms who would not have ever otherwise done anything improper or illegal with them!

End result is that far far more innocent people are always harmed by such efforts than the number of actual people ever usefully stopped by them because the actual percentage of crazed gun murders is such a small number of society and again, the variables change for every person. So politicians wishing to save their careers and idiots like you who want to do "something," invariable always end up going after "assault-style" rifles which only account for less than 1% of gun deaths and only harming a lot of innocent, law abiding people to make it look good and make them feel good and the crimes go on. Meantime, actual gun violence is DOWN.

And if you can't tell whether I'm being reasonable or a "looney tune," well, you've just made my point. Bye. You just want to do something to do something, even if you admit you don't know what to do, don't know if it will be effective, just throwing mud at a wall, just so you can say you did something, and then once the harm is done by another stupid, useless law, it is permanent.

In a free society, there will always be a certain tiny, small number of people who abuse that freedom, and you can't fix or stop that without taking away the freedom of everyone.

I just don’t buy the argument that all these innocent people are being hurt. How are good responsible people being hurt? I own guns, many of my friends own guns. We live in liberal California, it isn’t a problem.

Now let me ask a simple question. Do you really think if we dropped gun regulations and let anybody go into any store and buy a gun and then carry those guns in public... do you really think that would make our communities safer?

Do you really think people who would otherwise not be dangerous, would suddenly become violent criminals and start shooting up any and all places around them?

Go look at General S.L.A. Marshall's study on soldiers in combat. His research OVERWHELMINGLY demonstrates that most humans will naturally try to avoid shooting at the enemy in a combat situation. Most WW2 soldiers simply hid and tried to avoid engaging the enemy.

The military had to create pop-up target training to get soldiers to actually shoot the enemy in combat.

People don't naturally want to kill.

But, don't we already assume everyone we don't know is armed? Hasn't it been that way since the beginning?

.

No I don’t think people will all of a sudden become violent. If that’s how you are interpreting my arguments then you aren’t paying attention.

I for one don’t assume everybody around me is armed and I see many people with crazy tempers that get in fights while drunk where I’m sure glad they aren’t armed during those situations.

Chances are that anyone who gets into drunken bar fights won't be able to legally buy a gun

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Why not?

 

[Slade3200]

you forget what happened to all of our cars when we were forced to get licenses!


every car was confiscated!


and then when they forced us to get wedding licenses our brides were all rounded up and taken away!


same thing will happen with guns!

Then tell me what is the purpose of registering a car.

If you don't know I'll tell you

You have to register a car primarily so the state can tax you.

Since there is no legal way to put an excise tax on guns what is the purpose of registering them?

Let’s keep going... Why are licenses given for cars?

Since driving is a privilege and not a right the state can require people to pass a basic competency test before being granted the privilege of driving. The drivers license is proof to law enforcement that you did indeed meet that requirement and have been granted the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roads.

There’s the knee jerk again, haha. I’m not talking about rights. I’m talking about cause and effect. You are shifting the argument. First you say that licensing/registration has no practical effects. And then when we point to areas where it has a practical effect you jump to the “Rights” argument. You can do better than that.

I think we all know that licensing is a way to verifying that a person is qualified, capable and responsible enough to hold the legal power of driving a car. It’s done for public safety and law enforcement reasons. Same logic can be used for guns... but but I know, driving isn’t a right and gun ownership is... that’s Not the point!!!!

Driving is not a right
The state can place any stipulations it wants on drivers because it is not a right

There is no analogy that can adequately be used to compare a right to a privilege

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

We aren’t comparing rights to privileges. We are showing cause and effect. You’re twisting the argument. Regulations are either effective or not, that’s the discussion

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Building bombs and molesting children are crimes. Somebody saying they are a white supremacist or saying they hate Mexicans on social media is not.

Regardless, in order to spy on anybody, you need a surveillance warrant to do that. Image how backlogged our courts would be with 20 million cases of accusations every year.

Then there is the fact that building bombs or molesting children are not constitutional rights. The right to bear arms is. That means the accused is allowed to have their day in court. You simply can't take away a constitutional right without a proper court hearing, and the ability of the accused to appeal decisions ruled against them.

But even if we had the ability to entertain all that, are you going to tell me that will stop all mass gun murders?

See you use another faux argument. I never said it would stop ALL mass gun murders. You are clearly not interested in having an honest debate as you make up shit to debate that I neither said nor implied. I’m not going to waste anymore time correcting your dishonesty. Perhaps we can pick up the debate some other time once you’ve grown up a bit.

That’s not what you’re pissed about. You’re pissed because I pointed out the many flaws in your proposal.

If your suggestion isn’t going to stop mass shootings, then why bother to inconvenience all other gun owners in the country if it isn’t going to solve anything?

See, the Democrat party also know their proposals won’t stop anything either. And when it doesn’t, on to the next set of laws that will have the same results. In the end, we will be stuck with a bunch of laws that don’t accomplish anything that we will never be able to get rid of. What it will do is make purchasing and keeping a firearm such a hassle, such a problem, and likely such an expense that most law abiding people will just not deal with it and remain unarmed.

It’s all part of the big plan.

How do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.

Get it?

We are to the point where there have been so many mass shootings that it's hard to remember. But I don't recall a mass murder where the weapons involved were obtained through "other means" that could have been prevented.

In Sandy Hook, the kid did attempt to buy firearms and was denied with our current system. So he killed his mother and used her weapons instead. In Columbine, the shooters were under age which prevented them from legally buying guns in their names. They used straw purchasers who claim they didn't know the intent of the shooters. While they were strange kids and did have juvenile criminal records, nobody suspected they were capable of anything like what they did.

In these last two shootings, I believe the suspects were allowed to buy guns, just like the kook in the Las Vegas shooting. I also believe most of the shooters in mass murderers didn't have a record either.

The point is there is no way to determine who might do what in most cases. So to say that these initiatives will not stop mass murders, but will make them a little better is hardly worth the inconvenience of the rest of the country.

Well there you go, you are proving my point. Sandy hook guy tried to buy but couldn’t so he had to use what his mom had. What if all the GC deniers had their way and there were no regulations? What if sandy hook guy could have just bought an uzi? How many more kids would be dead?

Probably the same amount. He didn't kill more because of the weapons he didn't have, he heard sirens and killed himself.

When shooting into a group of people, a semi-automatic handgun will do the same damage as a semi-automatic rifle. The only difference is you have better aim with a rifle which isn't needed when you're killing people sitting in a church or in a school at short range.

Fully automatic weapons in this country are only legal by licensed and very investigated individuals.

Statistically, our gun and violent crime has been on the decline since the early 90's with what we are doing. That was interrupted with the Ferguson Effect, but is back on the decline once again. Liz Warren is trying to rehash that event, but I don't think it will catch on.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You know what's NOT fake news?

Trump said "Take guns first, due process second" as in supports Red Flag
Trump got bumpstocks banned and made 500,000+ plus Americans felons over a hunk of plastic
Trump called and CONGRATULATED Rick Scott for SIGNING gun control in FL
Trump expresses support for stronger background checks

Trump sucks on the 2A, just like any Democrat would.and the Moon Bats should love him for it.

So you would be happier with Hillary in there instead with a Democrat Congress?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That’s not what you’re pissed about. You’re pissed because I pointed out the many flaws in your proposal.

If your suggestion isn’t going to stop mass shootings, then why bother to inconvenience all other gun owners in the country if it isn’t going to solve anything?

See, the Democrat party also know their proposals won’t stop anything either. And when it doesn’t, on to the next set of laws that will have the same results. In the end, we will be stuck with a bunch of laws that don’t accomplish anything that we will never be able to get rid of. What it will do is make purchasing and keeping a firearm such a hassle, such a problem, and likely such an expense that most law abiding people will just not deal with it and remain unarmed.

It’s all part of the big plan.

How do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.

Get it?

What I get is that the kid who mows down people in a mass shooting could be identified and stopped - even helped and their life put back on the right track IF we concentrated on the ROOT OF THE PROBLEM. Watch your local news after a mass shooting. The people that know the shooter will say we knew that was going to happen, it didn't come as a surprise, etc.

We know long before these young people kill someone, but don't do a damn thing to prevent it. Then you don't help them and their first encounter with police as an adult is after they've killed someone.

I don't think people like YOU get it.

I completely agree with you. I think mental health care in schools should be a primary focus. Why don’t you think I get it?

The solution to the problem is NOT background checks. If anyone is asking, then I don't think they get it. the guys buying guns and killing people would pass the background check. Their warning signs are ignored and they have no "history" (having been minors) to check.

People are pissing in the wind on this one. If you're calling the cops on a kid continually; if they're being reported to police; being kicked out of school, then someone needs to get involved ASAP.

Go the child's home; interview the parents; interview the child; give the child an IQ test and a drug test. Determine where the problem is. Use the schools in the evening hours as places to teach parenting skills and one on one / group therapy for parents and children. SOLVE the problem while the kid is young.

BTW: The current method is to give a kid six minutes with a doctor and let them prescribe Ritalin or Adderall and then let the kid begin thinking the police and pills are their parents.

I didn't say background checks were the solution to the problem. I dont think there is A solution that will solve the problem... but there are several things that can be done to help reduce the damage. Background check are one of those things.

We already have background checks for weapons purchased from a dealer at a shop or gun show. We have had killers who did pass the background check and still used those weapons for mass murders.

 

[2aguy]

That’s not what you’re pissed about. You’re pissed because I pointed out the many flaws in your proposal.

If your suggestion isn’t going to stop mass shootings, then why bother to inconvenience all other gun owners in the country if it isn’t going to solve anything?

See, the Democrat party also know their proposals won’t stop anything either. And when it doesn’t, on to the next set of laws that will have the same results. In the end, we will be stuck with a bunch of laws that don’t accomplish anything that we will never be able to get rid of. What it will do is make purchasing and keeping a firearm such a hassle, such a problem, and likely such an expense that most law abiding people will just not deal with it and remain unarmed.

It’s all part of the big plan.

How do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.

Get it?

What I get is that the kid who mows down people in a mass shooting could be identified and stopped - even helped and their life put back on the right track IF we concentrated on the ROOT OF THE PROBLEM. Watch your local news after a mass shooting. The people that know the shooter will say we knew that was going to happen, it didn't come as a surprise, etc.

We know long before these young people kill someone, but don't do a damn thing to prevent it. Then you don't help them and their first encounter with police as an adult is after they've killed someone.

I don't think people like YOU get it.

I completely agree with you. I think mental health care in schools should be a primary focus. Why don’t you think I get it?

The solution to the problem is NOT background checks. If anyone is asking, then I don't think they get it. the guys buying guns and killing people would pass the background check. Their warning signs are ignored and they have no "history" (having been minors) to check.

People are pissing in the wind on this one. If you're calling the cops on a kid continually; if they're being reported to police; being kicked out of school, then someone needs to get involved ASAP.

Go the child's home; interview the parents; interview the child; give the child an IQ test and a drug test. Determine where the problem is. Use the schools in the evening hours as places to teach parenting skills and one on one / group therapy for parents and children. SOLVE the problem while the kid is young.

BTW: The current method is to give a kid six minutes with a doctor and let them prescribe Ritalin or Adderall and then let the kid begin thinking the police and pills are their parents.

I didn't say background checks were the solution to the problem. I dont think there is A solution that will solve the problem... but there are several things that can be done to help reduce the damage. Background check are one of those things.

No, they aren't. The current checks don't stop criminals who simply steal their guns or use straw buyers who can pass any background check. Mass shooters can pass any background check or they too steal their guns....

Background checks are security theater......and the next step to gun registration, which you need to confiscate guns.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Building bombs and molesting children are crimes. Somebody saying they are a white supremacist or saying they hate Mexicans on social media is not.

Regardless, in order to spy on anybody, you need a surveillance warrant to do that. Image how backlogged our courts would be with 20 million cases of accusations every year.

Then there is the fact that building bombs or molesting children are not constitutional rights. The right to bear arms is. That means the accused is allowed to have their day in court. You simply can't take away a constitutional right without a proper court hearing, and the ability of the accused to appeal decisions ruled against them.

But even if we had the ability to entertain all that, are you going to tell me that will stop all mass gun murders?

See you use another faux argument. I never said it would stop ALL mass gun murders. You are clearly not interested in having an honest debate as you make up shit to debate that I neither said nor implied. I’m not going to waste anymore time correcting your dishonesty. Perhaps we can pick up the debate some other time once you’ve grown up a bit.

That’s not what you’re pissed about. You’re pissed because I pointed out the many flaws in your proposal.

If your suggestion isn’t going to stop mass shootings, then why bother to inconvenience all other gun owners in the country if it isn’t going to solve anything?

See, the Democrat party also know their proposals won’t stop anything either. And when it doesn’t, on to the next set of laws that will have the same results. In the end, we will be stuck with a bunch of laws that don’t accomplish anything that we will never be able to get rid of. What it will do is make purchasing and keeping a firearm such a hassle, such a problem, and likely such an expense that most law abiding people will just not deal with it and remain unarmed.

It’s all part of the big plan.

How do you know that gun laws haven’t prevented death? It’s common sense to me. What you call an inconvenience also serves as a deterrent. It prevents people from making emotional decisions, it makes high risk people go through other means to get guns and lessens their killing power. The kid who shot up a group with a hand gun would have done much more damage if he could have stopped by the local Big 5 and bought an uzi on his way to school.

Get it?

What I get is that the kid who mows down people in a mass shooting could be identified and stopped - even helped and their life put back on the right track IF we concentrated on the ROOT OF THE PROBLEM. Watch your local news after a mass shooting. The people that know the shooter will say we knew that was going to happen, it didn't come as a surprise, etc.

We know long before these young people kill someone, but don't do a damn thing to prevent it. Then you don't help them and their first encounter with police as an adult is after they've killed someone.

I don't think people like YOU get it.

The gun isn't the root of the problem

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Agreed. Our mass murder increase is proportional with the amount of people who have left God. Surveys show that more and more, Americans are turning to atheism or secularism and religion is losing ground.