Poor poor men. We should keep us from getting a hold of guns if we’re so unstable.
And butterknives, hammers, chainsaws, cars, poison dipped darts, wrenches, bit of wood, microwave ovens, crossbows, axes and swords, don't forget those as well.
None of that shit kills 30,000 people a year
Really? Check again. More people die in or under cars. An infant was struck just struck over the weekend after some gangbanger hit her with their car.
So can we have the same regulations for guns that we do for cars?Check and mate.
Which is what we have. You can't buy a gun without a license. Check. Most who buy guns for proection buy insurance. Check. There are more than a 100 million fun owners and so few deaths. Half of those are gangbangers and drug money. Police can't control that. Sucide has options, ask Robin Williams, and of the nutcases that are buying guns, are getting through the NIX system, which is a government database problem. Not gun owners. So if you want to solve murder just make drugs illegal and solve government bureaucracies. No... There is your problem. No sir, you lose.
Yes you can buy guns without licenses. And the mass shooters last week even had a red flag and it didn’t stop him from buying a gun legally.
"Guns are not the problem. They are not even weapons."What the hell are they then? They're tools for killing. Some types are used for killing animals, but they were invented and perfected for killing people.
I think you misunderstood the second amendment... it’s not for carrying weapons and it’s not for creating an army. It’s quite simply to keep the population able to defend itself against foreign or present opresser or if need be there own goverment... remember the forefathers of the United States had to turn against their own government... And one of the key problems is that the British government didn’t allow citizens weapons. I ask you this if your government takes your guns away who’s going to protect you from your own government?
Perhaps you should read the second amendment. It IS exactly for the purposes of prevent the government from taking guns away from a well regulated militia.
@Wowie101 Please stop being another uneducated American. Read the second amendment. It's simple enough a ten year old could understand it. I mean for Pete's sake it says militia in the goddamn second amendment and you're saying it doesn't. Are you simple?
I guess some of you know better than the supreme court on constitutional matters. It was confirmed it is an individual right, not for the purpose of a militia only.
@someblondchick? Have you not at all even read the second amendment. How about all the discussions about how it’s been phrased? It was written by a bunch of people who knew exactly what not being able to arm yourself Meant... you have to understand that these people were fighting against their own government. So they wanted to make it clear in the constitution that should the government become corrupt again the people need to be able to defend themselves... The first rule of any corrupt regime is to un-arm the populace
@jerdano in all fairness sometimes I think a three-year-old child knows more than the Supreme Court
@Wowie101 Then you have decided that your personal beliefs are more important than the law and structure of our society. So why bother mentioning the constitution at all?
@jerdanro... my personal beliefs? The law and structure of society are flawed... I have to do what I feel is morally right. Even if that means going against the constitution. There’s a lot of wrong happening right now and the constitution wasn’t designed for this world. It really is brilliant and was a beacon of their society when they signed it. I believe in the Second Amendment for the fact that a person needs to be able to defend himself personally as well as communicatively. And especially against his own government. It takes two steps for a government to become corrupt and try to take away everything from you your freedom even your children. The second amendment was put there so that people could defend themselves peroid... your government needs to be afraid of it people to keep the government fair and just. When the constitution was drafted the British government was ruling harshly unfairly and the forefathers knew this. George Washington once said that the only way to have true freedom is to have a revolution every four years. In the last 10 years I’ve seen Americans sign away almost all their civil rights things that people died for. Our government is no longer functioning. If it keeps on this path there’s only one logical conclusion. Revolution
I agree completely. I must have misunderstood what you said, though I hope we can take our country back without any more bloodshed.
@Wowie101 I think you’re right. They haven’t read the second amendment. They want to interpret it they way they want to. It’s kind of like how MAGA folk think statues of losers is the best way to learn history.
@jerdanro "... I hope we can take our country back without any more bloodshed. "Take it back from whom, exactly? The majority of Americans who voted against your chosen candidate in an election? There's a name for that, and it isn't patriotism.
Nice, I keep saying young people now days think the constitution is a worthless piece of paper... you just reaffirmed that.If you live in the USA, then you should push for a constitutional amendment to revoke the 2nd amendment then.
It would be pretty sweet if we were only allowed weapons from the 18th century, drive by shootings would look like the revolutionary war reenactments 🎥
Funny how it's people outside the US who are most critical of us and want us to change the most... I find the term "your country" "Their" "Americans need to" the most if I do ctrl + f and search on this thread. The Kentucky Long Rifle was a flintlock that took about 20-40 seconds to load, was accurate to 100 yards for an inexperienced user, and up to 200 for someone who could measure the shot well. That was cutting edge though, we did have shotguns, which if loaded with rocks, glass and what not would have that 5 foot accuracy you're talking about, and smoothbore rifles as well, which are just garbage past about 20 feet, hence beating the British using smooth-bore rifles for volley fire from greater range with smaller numbers "sniping"(used loosely for shots 1-2 football fields away) officers and supply trains with those Kentucky rifles, and simply running away. Very unsportsmanlike, but taking few while inflicting many casualties and fatalities.Anyway, we aren't trying to change your system of royalty, parliament, dogs and knives. Those are choices for individual countries and regions.
The 2nd amendment was a change in the constitution. Same as prohibition.
@OddBeMe Yeah, difference being you're a US citizen who wants to change our constitution, I'm all for debate like that, even if I oppose the action. Also your example of prohibition is not a good one as that established organized crime and entrenched gangs in the US...My problem is these are issues in the US for the US to solve. You're also confusing the bill of rights with the constitution, but that's a whole different thing. Declaration of independence --> Constitution (basic framework of government) --> Bill of rights (what the federal government says states cannot outlaw) The original bill of rights is the first ten, everything after that is what was added on, as you say, prohibition, it's addition and repeal 13 years later... it is the only amendment to the bill of rights to have been repealed.Regardless, I'd rethink tying gun control to prohibition as absolutely nothing good came from it, the general public that supported it turned to lining the pockets of criminals, and it far over-reached its intended (and written) goals of hard alcohol to include all alcohol, and that argument is easily likened to assault weapon ban's uncle joe is putting into play.A common sense argument to not get people paranoid would be state by state gun-safety and responsibility courses. With a national registry, most firearm purchases are going to be illegal. If, however you request state by state they form their own program to simply ensure people wielding weapons can do so intentionally, like just knowing the basics of firearm safety, that it's ok to get help if they feel troubled, and have a family member they trust hold their weapons while they get it. Right now the climate of "mental illness, mental illness" makes it less likely for anyone to seek help. With red-flag laws' guilty until proven innocent, less likely to seek help, or interact with others if they are paranoid or seriously ill.
@CreamySeed Would you be okay with freedom of speech only applying to methods from the 18th century too? No freedom of speech online or in any digital format... here come news papers back in business with printed editions and more out in person protests. All social media shut down due to no freedom of speech allowed on it.
@razelove Redflag laws essentially are saying if you have a disability (protected under American's with disability act) you lose rights.The compromise I suggest is that, if someone is not sane enough to own or posses a gun. Then they shouldn't be expected to go to work either. Instead the government should put them in disability, once they accept that they voluntarily give up their right to a gun until such time that they may become better.It has never made sense to me that if someone is crazy we want to say they can't have a gun but they still need to find a job and go to work to take care of themselves.
You're a Moron who has no Idea of Weapons History. There were repeating Flintlocks back in the 1700's.
@Dragonpurple We have laws where you can petition the court to do a mental evaluation with due process. You call the coroner here concerned about a family member and they get taken to the hospital for a 72 hour evaluation, who you call and who can call varies state to state, but the system is there. My problem with red flag laws is the guilty until proven innocent. I could simply have the motive of wanting to rob you as a friend or family member, call concerned about your mental health anonymous, and you won't know until the police are confiscating your weapons. You then have to petition the court yourself to get them back. I've had weapons seized by the police before, and if you don't get a receipt of the seizure, you aren't getting them back, even then they may have disappeared already (easiest way to not guilty, sticky fingers in evidence) so you're getting a check for what they think it's valued at. You're talking about not just a violation of the 2nd amendment, but 4th and 5th as well. As for when I had my weapons seized I was detained, so that's perfectly legal, went through the system, got my guns back leaving holding or after trial depending on the bail restrictions.
The 2nd Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights, the original section of the Constitution guaranteeing Citizens Rights that the State can't take away, It was never a random Change to the Constitution. You dumb fucking simpleton.
@razelove how about the amendment that ended prohibition? See we can easily amend stuff that doesn’t work.
Not easily, I think you need a supermajority to pass an amendment of any kind.
@Twalli sure as it should be. Just saying 2a isn’t set in stone.
@razelove I agree on all those violations, unlawful seizure of property without reimbursement. Also that red flag laws are guilty until you prove innocent. Some states even charge you a storage fee to get your guns back.Personally until someone uses a weapon to commit a crime, in my opinion it should never be taken away. Like you said, if someone loses them then someone else robs, rapes or kills them... where I live police can be more than 60 minutes to get out to you. Record is 2 and 1/2 hours. Big county with only the sheriff's department patrolling the whole of it.That is why I said that those who are declared mentally unfit by a court, could have their rights removed to the disability but at the same time they should not be expected to go to work. Seems in many cases someone can't own a gun but is still expected to go out and find a job.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
And stop looking at internet graphs, thats not evidence. I can sit here and make a contrary graph and it would have as much value as the one you posted, all of zero. go watch old home videos on vhs of families raising their kids, or just be old enough to remember.
Your argument will be ignored like mine. Numbers and facts are mere inconveniences compared to an agenda and confirmation bias.
@razelove True that.
They're not mutually exclusive
Well, in the Philippines they can afford guns, they're just home-made and mostly based on the Colt 1911 design. NYTimes did a story on it, I was only interested in that because I have relatives from there. They made it difficult to get guns, so the result was workshops selling illegal guns producing and selling more than the legal firearms for a cheaper price.www.nytimes.com/.../philippines-illegal-guns.html
Thank you for defining people who support gun control. Now tell me why there shouldn’t be mandatory background checks.
@OddBeMe Cause there already is you fucking Moron. It's called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, you braindead simpleton. You can't legally get a gun without it.
@Ryfyle we don’t already have it moron. And the fed ex shooter would have been red flagged if we had itwamu.org/.../
@OddBeMe https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics There you go you retarded Cocksucker. Just because some pigs and feds don't enforce a law doesn't mean it's not there. The Feds fuck up all the time with the laws we have on the books. We have had unversal Background Checks since the 60's with NICS, you Fuck faced retard.
@Ryfyle so you’d be for strengthening the background checks and applying them universally to gun shows and private sales?
@OddBeMe It's a farce and a waste of time at this point. There's no strengthening anything because there's barely any enforcement of any laws on the books unless it's used for a political hit job. the GCA of 1968 is probably one of the most racist laws since then and has been yet to be repealed.
@OddBeMe Why? They clearly are just fluff laws to placate the drooling masses. there's barely any enforcement because at the end of the day it's Vote Bait.
So the US is crazier than other countries?
Yeah, go on NIH and look up death by cause 2016 for teens, adults and both. There are comparisons to other countries per capita. Most gun deaths were suicides, most deaths by injury were with motor vehicles, and we are in number one spot per capita on those. We are more violent and self-destructive than other countries regardless of the weapon.How do you think we got to number 1 in arms exports? Peace, love and good intentions?
@razelove so just being Americans makes us different than say Canadians? Or Mexicans?
Well, yeah. I was gonna fight back a little on militaristic society. But compared to Europe we do spend a ton on it and our police are militaristic against poor people.
If guns are banned, what happens to blackmarket prices?
Already covered that. People are always going to be able to have guns so we should focus on mental health.
The price would skyrocket wouldn’t it?
Yes, the price would be much higher.
So much less people wouldn’t have access to guns right?
yes, this is the point, but it's a complex issue being getting rid of guns could lead to trafficking and even more violence.
But we agreed black market prices would skyrocket and less people would have access to black market guns. So how would that be possible?
Not the same level if mental illness
@bones0271 Actually it ispubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../ps.psychiatryonline.org/.../ps.2007.58.1.63
American Americans are psychotic
@bones0271 Mmkay then
You think there’s only 1.96 mass shootings a year? We’ve had 40 just since March,
That is a very good question and I think part of the answer at least is that people really don't care about each other. Even if someone is carrying a concealed weapon I think that their first response is going to be to try and get away from the shooter and not try to be a hero. I know of only one instance where a security guard in a church shot and killed Mass shooter after he killed three or four people in the congregation. Other than that I don't know of any incidents where some "hero" with a concealed weapon actually did much of anything
@msc545 Actually that attacker killed two people, the pastor and one other, with a shotgun. There hasn't been any mention of how much ammunition he was carrying, or the type of weapon (other than it was a sawn-off shotgun); so it's entirely possible he wasn't going to be a mass shooter.en.wikipedia.org/.../West_Freeway_Church_of_Christ_shootingIf you find yourself in a mass shooting with a concealed weapon, do you draw it and risk getting mistaken for the shooter, or leave it where it is?
@goaded I would leave it where it is and would leave the premises if I could. I am no hero and my weapon is to protect me and anyone that is with me, not others.
@msc545 Very sensible.
Well guns are also easier to use and automatic firearms that an average person could have/use are more accessible
I reluctantly agree too
The problem is the people, but since we can't chain the people in their own homes so they don't come out (they have freedom rights, the only option is take the guns away.If there are no gun, they will use knifes. That is correct. If they don't have a knife, they will use... The leg of a chair, for example. Or a tree branch. Or the handle is a spoon.The point is, anything can be used as a weapon, both to attack others and to defend yourself. However, nothing is as potentially lethal than a gun, especially from a certain distance, where the victim can't do anything (contrary to against melee weapons, where you at least have a chance).
@Hawner nothing is as lethal as a gun except for maybe a crossbow. See the problem?
No, there is no problem at all.The crossbow's bolt blocks the wound, so there is not as much bloodloss as there is with a bullet.You need less protection against a bolt than against a bullet, basically due to the immense power shooting the bullet forward.Unless there are new models I am unaware of, a crossbow only shoots once and then you have to reload. The least number of bullets on a gun nowadays is 6 (revolver).The effective distance of a gun is greater than that of a crossbow, so you can shoot from greater distance and with more precision.While not something easy to do, you have more chances of dodging a bolt than a bullet.A crossbow is very hard to conceal and is not easy to handle, contrary to a gun.So you see, even if the crossbow is, shot-per-shot, more dangerous than a gun, in reality a gun will be more lethal: it shoots more, faster, deals lots of damage with the shot and leaving the wound open, and is easy to hide and use.
A crossbow is far from harmless.
What is that supposed to mean? I don't want to buy bolt, thank you.
I never said it was harmless. You know that between 1 and 10 there are other numbers, right? The gun is now lethal than the crossbow, but the latter is by no means harmless.
@Hawner Umm, you're confused on blood loss, if you shoot a deer with a high powered rifle, it'll run for a while, if you nail it with a razor edged hunting tip, count down from 30(assuming you hit heart or any artery in either case). Also explosives are far more deadly than guns. I'm glad that people turn to guns rather than learning to buy common materials to make gas or bombs. Look how close the Boston marathon bombers were to getting away, or the devastation at Oklahoma city. Anyway, guns require line of sight, aim, ammo, and that means if you can shoot your target, your target can shoot you. The same is not true of IEDs or grenades. Those cause far more casualties and deaths when used. The miracle of columbine is that they did have bombs they were going to use, but focused so much on guns that they messed up their primers. Their original goal was to shoot so people funneled through areas where the bombs were, then those people and first responders got blown up and shredded by shrapnel.If you care to, you can read it in the FBI report investigating Columbine, that shit is chilling. If it's 8 injured, 20, 5 dead, 10, or whatever caused by sick people resorting to what relatively is a low impact weapon, I would rather that than if they actually began to think hard about how to maximize the damage to civilians. They reflexively go for guns, and gun free zones. If you don't want to be a victim of a mass shooting, just don't go into gun free zones that lack an armed guard of some sort.
@razeloveWell, it's you hit the heart or an important artery with the rifle CB it will also die, the same with the bolt. With the bloodloss I meant of it didn't hit a primary organ like the heart, brain and such. The stomach would be a good example, even a lung to some degree.With the explosives thing I do agree with you in that they have more lethal power than guns. The problem with them is preparing then correctly and lure whatever you want to kill to it. Grenades with of circumvent that issue, but they are less reliable in terms of aiming unless you have a trained arm."If you can shoot your target, it can shoot you". I'm sorry, but that is also true for grenades. And if you had the time to set a bomb around, your target may have as well.In any case, when I think of banning guns, I kinda include any kind of weapon on that list (guns, rifles, explosives...).
@Hawner Grenades are specifically designed to avoid LoS. Take cover, pull pin, throw. More commonly used for entry into rooms, a small M67 grenade has a kill radius of 5m, casualty radius of 15, a good throwing arm is only needed if you don't have cover to not be in your own kill or casualty radius. Most people, and officers for that matter, do not carry grenades on them. Even if they did the risk of deploying them in any area with civilians is too great, it's why they commonly have tear gas.Making explosives is not a difficult thing to do, and banning them would be a joke. How would anyone have basements anywhere that the bedrock is close to the surface? Making igniters is easy if you actually study and practice it, TNT is dangerous, but simple to manufacture as well. You're not going to be able to ban nitrates, which really is all you need to make powerful explosives. Nitric acid, ammonium nitrate, so on and so forth. You get those big booms from breaking bonds in exothermic reactions, then the secondary reactions of the nitrogen trying to bond with itself. The tertiary reactions just make nasty things that are not fun to inhale or have in waterways. Outlaw those and it's a simple matter of gasoline and a heating element to make thermobaric explosives which have less shrapnel, so less casualty radius, but an enormous explosion comparative to the mass of fuel and oxidizer, so massive kill radius. Up your chemistry game to aluminum, magnesium, ammonium perchlorate, and the right timing for air dispersal with the right granulation of metals, and some truly terrifying things arrive in small packages.
The only upside is how much false knowledge is spread on how to make them, like follow my loose instructions up there and you're just likely to take yourself and your own home out, which is fine by me rather than "succeeding". Reading books and practice on small scale make it ridiculously easy to manufacture what you want. How difficult do you think it would be to make a shotgun out of pipe, 2x4, a mousetrap, pulley and string? That is perfectly legal to do (today at least) if you never sell it by the way. Also stupid considering commercial alternatives, but if they don't exist, it becomes more attractive.You can ban guns, but, isn't murder already illegal, which is the topic of the conversation? It doesn't stop it from happening. There are also less police to prevent or solve murders in major cities, so good luck with your unarmed residents in densely populated areas not being extorted, robbed, and murdered.
I am no fool, I know banning explosives would not impede people from making then at home. But first of all they would not be available in stores, which by itself is already good. Secondly, if someone starts gathering materials that could be used for a bomb (more than normally is used, I mean), would raise some suspicion, making it easier to locate the would-be killer.Yes, murder is illegal everywhere, and in "unarmed places" there is still crime. But, there is much less crime than where you can buy weapons. If people don't have guns available, they are less inclined to do crime since they don't have the advantages they give.There will always be crime, with or without guns, that is a reality. Accepting it and not fall to paranoia and help crime be stronger than you is important. If you are not allowed to have guns, when you have one there will be eyes looking at you. You leave traces that are easier to follow if there are not legal guns roaming around. Criminals are then catched faster and easier, and then judged.Overall, it is better not to have guns than have them.
Well, jury's out on whether you're a fool or not with that belief in government omnipotence, but have a ball with that. I don't live or work in a major city, and those are the people who are, and will suffer the most. They already chased most of the cops out, you're setting the stage for Snake Plissken to Escape from New York lol
I don't believe it is omnipotent, not by a long shot.I don't know who that is, but ok.
@Hawner Look at the hunting bolts and tell me they will plug a wound.
@Hawner Yes, the thing is anyone can buy or build a crossbow out of a sawed-off rifle stock and a car spring and piano wire.
But 30,000 people aren’t dying a year from arrows or piano wire.
That is because we presently have guns. Take guns away and (right after the insane civil war that will cause) people will find a way to kill each other without guns.
Funny cuz it hasn’t happened to the rest of the world. They banned guns and piano wire remains musical.
Then here is the question for you: stinger there will always be a way for us stupid humans to arm ourselves and kill each other, how easy do you want it to be for them? Do you want them to just go in a store and but whatever they want and then kill whomever they want, or do you want them to have a hard time gathering what they need, building their weapons themselves (never as good as manufactured ones), risking their trail to be found before they actually act, and then go kill someone with the handmade deadline they managed to make? Which of those options looks preferable to you?
Agreed, but this is the US: The land of gratuitous violence and hot dogs.
@Hawner harder for criminals to get weapons. Easy
That means gun regulations and buy backs to get them off the street.
Then don't deny that banning guns would do just that, at the very least. That is always a good thing.
I think we need to rethink the definition of a weapon. The murderers in the UK sure did, and quite successfully at that.
Sorry, I thought you were the other guy. It was directed to him.
@Hawner huh? Banning guns would make black market guns or gun parts skyrocket.
@Hawner Do you guys not live in the US? Do you have any idea how much violence even proposing something like banning guns would cause? Guys in the US, particularly in the South, love their guns more than they love their dicks.
@msc545 How many times that kind of thing has happened in the UK in the last couple of years? Very rarely.You many times has that happened in the US? Many times. The difference? In the UK weapons are banned.Your choice.
@OddBeMe They, that would make it harder for criminals to get weapons and force them to leave a trail that would lead the police to them if they manage to find it. @msc545 Violence? Without guns? Probably, but less lethal than with them. Also, after the dust settled, there would be a sudden drop in crime.
@Hawner In the UK people use knives, but you are right - very rare. People here in the US are far more pissed off than those in the UK.
@msc545 The problem is not that in the US people is pissed off, but that they are armed to the teeth. Take those away and they will think things once, twice, thrice and even 10 times before daring to do anything stupid.
@Hawner Well, the thing is, people here arm themselves to the teeth because they are pissed off and also very scared of almost anything and everything.
As an aside, you can actually buy a fairly nice car with the money some of these guys spend on guns. It literally becomes a fetish.
They are scared, period. Arming yourself is a normal reaction to that, but it is too extreme a case in the US. Instead of letting them grab any weapon they want, make them calm down, relax and see they are not surrounded by snakes, so to speak. They don't need a gun in their pants at all times and several submachine guns in their closets. They have to face the world without the fear guiding them. That is what the rest of the world does, and we do have less crime than the US because of it. There is crime, yes, but much less.
Why just limit it to western countries? Countries with equal or greater populations have fewer guns and fewer mass shootings. Fewer gun deaths all around actually. Not surprising
Because countries like China aren't comparable because they don't have freedoms. The government of China does more killing than gun violence in America.
But the causation of guns and gun violence is still true...
Law abiding citizens aren't the ones participating in mass shootings, so no law will stop the non law abiding citizens. Because the law means nothing to them.
Example, it is against the law to drive drunk, yet there are on average over 10,000 drunk driving deaths every year in the USA. If laws stopped needless death, there wouldn't be so many deaths because of drunk drivers.
Mass shooters are law abiding citizens up to the point they pull the trigger.
Well duh!!! Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they aren't. Mass shooters don't care about laws, is my point. Why should responsible law abiding gun owners be punished because of the actions of a few unstable individuals?
Either do car thieves or rapists. Are you saying laws don’t work?
If anti gun activists honestly cared about innocent lives being lost, they would lobby against abortion, the tobacco industry, drunk drivers and tougher gang laws. Each kill far more than mass shooters.
Oops. End of tape. You’re moving on to other inadequate arguements,
No I am not. If the reason for anti gun lobbyists was to protect innocent lives they would also lobby against the others i mentioned, it's about disarming and weakening the citizens from protecting themselves. The anti gun argument is inadequate.
I’m not for taking guns away FYI. Just want more regulations. Which law abiding gun owners should want too. Mass shooters make you look bad.
Mass shooters don't make responsible gun owners look bad. Mass shooters are irresponsible gun users. Not even close to the same thing. It would be like saying that drunk drivers make all drivers look bad. That would be a ridiculous statement. Responsible use of abortion, alcohol or tobacco is not a bad thing, just like responsible use of guns.
Drunk drivers do make all drivers look bad. Should we have the same regs for guns as we do for cars?
I was going to ask you the same thing, people with DUI's are not restricted in buying cars so why should law abiding citizens be restricted in buying guns?
(Shakes head) courts take away licenses for dui’s all the time. That would be lovely to have that for guns!
Not unless you are a regular offender, I'm okay with banning people who are mass shooters from owning guns, I actually don't think they should ever get out of prison to be able to buy a gun. You high light my point, we only restrict offenders with drunk drivers, the same should be the case with gun owners. Thank you for making my point so clearly.
Oh... the only regulations you agree to is for already arrested mass shooters. You’re an idiot.
How banning drunks from guns? Domestic abusers?
? No one is restricted from owning a car because of drunk drivers!!! I'm not an idiot, I would be an idiot to expect you to be restricted from owning or using a car because your neighbor is a drunk driver.
Ok so we make a gun that can’t be fired without a license.
? Do we have cars that can't be operated without a license? No we do not!!! So once again it is not reasonable to restrict law abiding citizens from responsibly owning guns, like it would not be reasonable to restrict law abiding citizens from buying a vehicle.
Can we jail gun owners who don’t have licenses?
For guns that require by law to be licensed, yeah I'm sure they can.
The answer is no.
In California the answer is yes, like I said, where a gun is required to be licensed then yes. www.criminallawyersandiego.com/.../
Didn’t even read the first line of your link did you?
I did, I read it all. Did you read the complete article?
yeah. like most states you need a ccl to carry. but not to own.
Just like owning a car. In California you can spend 1 year in jail for carrying a non licensed gun. So the answer of no that you gave was wrong, the correct answer is yes.
But you can own a non licensed gun in your home. But whatever. Really seems like cars and guns should have the same regulation and govt tracking...
I'm all for them being regulated the same. There is no restrictions on owning a 200 mph car so no restrictions on automatic weapons, restrictions only apply to people who have been irresponsible with the operation of the vehicle (multiple DWI/DUI) only guns owners who shoot people for no good reason should be restricted. I'm glad that you agree.
No... regulations apply to all since we don’t which law abiding big owner will the next mass shooter.- Gun registration- Mandatory universal background checks- Domestic abuse, mental health, history of violence will be red flagged and any who sell them a gun goes to prison.
But you can own a non licensed gun in your home. But whatever. Really seems like cars and guns should have the same regulation and govt tracking?I thought you said cars and guns should be regulated the same? We don't know who is going to drive drunk but don't restrict people from owning a car. Domestic abuse, mental health, history of violence aren't considered when purchasing a car, vehicles kill more people a year than guns. A vehicle is capable of killing as many people as any mass shooter. The difference being, the government sees gun owners as an obstacle for complete power, so that is why guns are a big issue. Also gun ownership is protected under the constitution, car ownership is not.
Yes cars and guns should be regulated the same. At least. Drunk drivers with no licenses can still “buy” a car from private citizens but they’re all registered so if they hit someone cops can trace.
? There is nothing requiring all cars being registered, I know many people who drive unregistered vehicles. Again you only get in trouble for using a non registered vehicle, some people buy guns for protection but luckily never need to use them. Where is the mental health, domestic abuse or violent action restrictions on car owners? There is none!!! Repeat drunk drivers have no restrictions on buying a vehicle, you can even buy a vehicle without a license!!!
Actually there is. Title and registration is supposed to be issued and updated with dmv. Your friends can be arrested for that.
Where is the restrictions for mental health, domestic abuse or violence history on buying a vehicle? I have asked you many times but you are scared to answer.
Unfort there isn’t. True. But there’s no trend of domestic abusers running over their victims. Either way, seems we have some sort of agreement,
Very true! Guess guns don’t respect municipal borders.
I think you're completely right that the country is having a mental health crisis. It follows then that the logical thing to do would be to provide Mental Health Services to The Fairly substantial portion of the population. However, this is Complicated by the fact that Mental Health Services are very expensive and nobody is willing to pay for them. Instead they would rather fund cops and fund Wars. So part of the price you pay for having this sort of political system that we have in the sort of economic system that we have is that from time to time and increasing in frequency we have mass shootings. I think everybody should just get used to them because they aren't going away and in fact they're going to become a part of daily life now.
You think the US has more crazy people than the rest of the world?
I know it does. Capitalism and the economic system we have makes people desperate and crazy
@msc545 Please link to a study that shows Americans have more mental issues than the rest of the world.
I will try to find a study that indicates that. However I want to modify my response just slightly I thought about it and I think what I really want to say is that the US has more untreated mental health problems than any other country in the world. So if you have two countries and the rate of mental illness is essentially equivalent but when country actually treats the people who have mental illness in the other country ignores them or shoots them in the street as we seem to do more and more of then the two countries are not really comfortable accepting frequency. I believe it's the lack of treatment that I'm really trying to reference here
Who were comfortable should actually be comparable
Fuk I hate that we can't edit
The US may not have a significantly larger mental illness problem than the rest of the world but it seems logical that mental issues correlate strongly with crime. Violent crime with the same cause happens in other places, it just isn't with guns as often
@djfhsjk yes we have crappy health care compared to Europe. Mental health isn’t cared for much here. Link that with easy access to guns, bam murder rate.
A big part of the problem with mental health care is that it takes a very long time to become a competent mental health care provider, and the schooling
Is very expensive and prolonged.
@msc545 yes, so immediate action should be to regulate guns.
Nah, people will just ignore that and get pissed off. Maybe regulate ammunition instead.
@msc545 that too. Bullet control.
I did have one weapon fire itself, a cheap.22 pistol that fell out of my pocket, into the door frame of my car, and when I slammed the door it had enough force to set off the rim-fire primer. Put a bullet through my windshield, granted, all those actions were my own and easily prevented by having a holster.I was just deaf, rolled out onto the ground yelling "get down, sniper! sniper!" since it was just me and my crew that I saw. Low crawled behind a front end loader, and it was easy to figure out that there was no sniper as all the noise was contained in my car, they heard nothing, I was deaf, my windshield was shot, and my magazine was missing a round. Oops lol, sure made for an interesting week of work as my hearing slowly came back though.
Ever considered that maybe it WAS a sniper sent by one of them and when he missed thag person made you belive it was your own gun? 🤔
Yeah, while I was looking around for a shooter that wasn't there. Glass breaks specifically depending on the direction of the bullet, and it would have impacted somewhere in my car if it was coming in. That round came from me handling a firearm with negligence and it's just extreme luck that I didn't wind up getting shot by myself. If you want to test that one out put two decibel meters (they're real cheap), one in and one out of car and fire a gun in it, the one outside will pick up wind and what not more so than the shot, inside will be deafening. If it was any round other than.22 rimfire I doubt it would have gone off as well, pretty much all guns since the 1960s are meant to not go off from impact but the trigger.
That may be true. But what if you have a weapon and the shooter is in front of you with his back turned. Boom. No more shooter. Less guns in the right hands is also bad.
More guns isn't really the problem, I could have 1 or 2 or 10 or a 100 or a 1000 and I can still only fire one at a time. It is something with society that is wrong that we should look to addressing why so many people want to do something that never used to happen hardly ever.
@Adamdp look at most sociopaths. They don't start their criminal spree until midlife crisis. So just cuz your neighbor wears a pole and plays golf on the weekends doesn't mean he doesn't have a sex torture room in his shed
I tried to build a sex torture room in my shed, but the structure didn't meet building code.
Make it to code
@jerdanro more govt regs for sex chambers than guns
@Dragonpurple Like the Las Vegas shooter? He only fired one at a time.
Stop bullying mentally ill people then. Not much of social hierarchal climb if you stand on social rejects
@Tomtom9090 Kids today seem able to know when someone is vulnerable and cull those out for their bullying. In spite of all the talk about not bullying, it still goes on in schools and in society in general, especially on line. Kids being bullied on line where they tell some vulnerable person to kill themselves as no one likes them at school has actually effected someone to the point of committing suicide.
China gets knife attacks often. Only a fraction actually die.
Because china people don't have access to the internet like other countries do.
Imagine if medical staff started trying to kill people, I imagine they actaully be able to do it better than anyone other than military
You gun nuts keep inventing what ifs instead of thinking logically about an issue,
I am sorry but we gun nuts are dumb enough to start shooting random people. Plus taking away our guns doesn't stop the issue. You and everyone else knows that are ways to kill massive amounts of people without guns and yet you won't ban those. We love our weapons we take care of them. We shouldn't have to have our things that we bought and paid for, put time into, train with, taken away from us just because of a few idiots who decided that right choices was to go down in fire
If you take our things, would you be willing to offer a refund for all of it? The government sure as hell wouldn't. Nor would you. Plus some of us are hunters, matter of fact, there are some who simply survive off of hunting alone
I don’t believe guns should be forcefully taken away. But Australia did a gun buyback program that worked pretty well. Could help get guns off the street.
It's a cheap political tactic to call things "common sense" without any actual details or study, and casual statistics like "90% of Americans..." are usually outright lies.
@jerdanro umm mando background checks are 90% polled
“Common sense” gun control is another way democrats try and use words to be deceptive.. “who could be against common sense gun laws?” And this “90%” figure is from where? From what I’ve seen, the polls are usually deceptive because when you tel people the TRUTH about statistics and what the democrats REAL intentions are, only a minority are for them.
Yhe only common sense gun law is mandatory firearm ownership. Switzerland does it and they have near 0 gun crime. And armed society is a polite society
@captain_voidwalker I kinda agree, but as a libertarian, I don’t think anyone should be forced to do anything they don’t want to. That being said, I think the anti-gun nuts who have no real argument to take guns away should shut up and leave us alone.
@OddBeMe Mandatory background checks are already the law for handgun purchases. The only transfer of a firearm that doesn't require a background check is if I give one to my child or spouse and in that case, I had a background check and am legally responsible.
@jerdanro I’m in Texas. No it’s not.
@captain_voidwalker and Switzerland requires gun permits dummy.
@OddBeMe It's a federal law. The only exemption is private sales, which are limited to non-felons. And yes, I know criminals don't follow the rules which is why more laws aren't the answer.
@jerdanro what world are you loving in? Congress has tried to pass mando background checks. And failed.
Switzerland only requires a permit for full auto. Anything else is open game.
No. They are trying to pass Universal background checks, that include all transactions. Have you ever purchased a handgun? Gun dealers are federaly licensed and required to perform background checks for any handgun purchase. The purchaser's identity is stored in a federal database with the serial number of the gun once the gun changes hands.
@jerdanro so it’s mandatory but not universal...
Universal means that it will cover all guns and all transactions. The problem is the talking heads making pronouncements are spitting out misleading statistics that don't get to the actual issues. It's a game to get votes.
@jerdanro (shaking my head) one of the mass shooters had a red flag for mental instability, had the fbi take away two guns and still was able to legally buy a gun.
I support adding mental health to background checks, but that probably violates HIPAA regulations.
@jerdanro you are correct in every response to OddBeMe... You can't reason with liberals/Leftists/democrats though man.
@MasterOfReality Your two should have a shotgun wedding.
We will leave it to the homos like you.(JK pal)
@Ryfyle How? Gun owners were once extremely responsible. They used guns to hunt, protect their family and occassionally for sport. Nowadays when I think gun advocate I think a guy who has an extreme collection and obsessed with how much damage they can do.I'm not saying all gun owners nowadays are extremists or hoarders but they are gaining that connotation and they aren't fighting it.
Because you straight up use media talking points. None of those that "Hoard Guns" are the ones who actually commit the Mass Shootings and Gun Crimes that are Prevalent in Blue Democrat Run Cities. That's like accusing anybody who wears work boots of being a Nazi Skinhead that worships Hitler and Satan.
@RyfyleNo it isn't. How can you not see the problem when the first two types of gun owners we think of are mass shooters or hoarders?Gun owners are facing a PR nightmare and rather than rebranding themselves they continue to be reckles.
@Hypnos0929 Yo8u brought up Gun hoarders and Mass Shooters firs. It doesn't matter what gun owners do, the media controls the narrative and want to destroy the 2A to make for a defenseless populace.
@Ryfyle Y'all always on that shit. You ever think the way to beat the media is to get yourselves outside and actually show people how to act? How to handle guns? What to do in an active shooter situation?Y'all do everything but the smart thing and tbh y'all are losing because of it. When there are people pouring gas onto a fire you smother the fire, stop the gas, or you get outside help. There are a ton of safer nations that have gun lovers too
Most people are retarded Chimps that listen to the MSM talking head because they have been labeled an "Authority". They have tried to do all that shit you've listed, Any Gun advocate says anything, they're labeled Psycho potential mass shooters by the MSM. Thankfully the MSM has been loosing their Touch and the Riots and the pandemic have made millions of new gun owners.
Or are do we have high incarceration because prisons are a for profit industry?
Can you incarcerate people that didn't commit a crime?
We are constantly exonerating people. It also convicting them of minor drug use, which I consider not criminal.
Well what you consider not a criminal apparently conflicts with your law. Maybe that's a part of the reason there's so many crimes there. People don't take the law seriously. I mean germanies law is way more strict and we have way lower incarceration rates.
though i personally think that your "jury duty" system is kind of wonky. as if the people could "decide" what was the truth or not. seems more like a gamble involving a theatre performance than a reliable system.
Ar-15s have changed in value, they're worth more and manufactured by many more people due to demand and media coverage. Cheaper steel and lower QA is going into them than 10 years ago, meanwhile I can buy a sniper rifle, scope, sling, pistol, and holster combined for the same price. They have not changed dramatically in value.You can also buy CA and NY gun-law "friendly" ARs as though those states are screaming loudest for gun control laws, their citizens still want guns for self-defense, legally. Illegal guns in those states are simply bought through straw purchases (which are already illegal) here in the South.Every time I look at guns, their prices, and when it's time to finally get an FFL license to import and sell, I cannot count the number of NY and CA plates trying to buy guns in LA or TX.
You think a vehicle can't out 4-5 maybe even 10 people at once? The problem is the people not the guns.
@CreamySeed no, it's guns. America is the only country with regular school shootings. There was a case of a kid in Canada who wrote a letter saying she wanted to shoot up her school but it was impossible for her to get a gun (she didn't know anybody who owned one), and she took a knife to school instead and injured someone and then got caught. Imagine if she was in the USA? Mass murder. Guns are the problem. Losers like guns.
Canada also has a far lower population density... in rural settings, even in the US with our proliferation of guns, people are more likely to commit suicide than homicide. Also to wreck cars and drive drunk far more. Or is Canada not in the middle of an opioid crisis as well? www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6637963/
@razelove what does population density have to do with mass murders? Almost every Canadian lives in a dense urban setting. And nobody lives in the arctic. Why does the artic matter? Americans have a HUGE gun problem. They murder each other constantly with guns, there is a child that dies from a gun accident in the usa every 8 hours. American gun culture is insane.
Your "high density" cities are more on par with a suburb in America than a city like Chicago, New York, Minneapolis, LA, so on and so forth. I'd put New Orleans up as an example, but the killings here are ridiculous, with every manner of weapon available. It's more comparable to Alaska, yes, there are cities, most people live there, smaller rural communities pop up and disappear for logging, mining, oil, exploration, basically exploiting mineral resources. There are long term residents in rural areas as well.Don't even pretend your population density is higher when you have a larger country with a tenth of the people. Your largest "city" spans 243 square miles, which is Toronto, around 3 million people. New York is 8.4 million for 300 square miles, LA is 13.1 million people over 469 square miles. We have larger cities in the South which are considered backwaters.countryeconomy.com/.../usa?sc=XE92
I already stated in my previously cited sources why it matters, in rural and suburban settings people are more likely to commit suicide rather than homicide. Your country is more suburban and rural, your country has a larger problem with overdoses and suicides rather than homicides. No one is pointing fingers at Canada to clean that up, or complaining when you arbitrarily ban US citizens from travelling to your frozen wasteland.
@razelove Canada is more urban and America...
Go on, you have ice, 3 species of trees, and... America is... finish the thought or don't start. Read the sources, your country is a frozen wasteland. If Mad Max was filmed there it would be a 15 minute long movie on frostbite. You do realize the option to annex Canada existed for America long ago. It was worthless then as it is now. Your navy has diesel submarines donated by the US, right? Mexico at least came close to kicking our ass in the Spanish America War, you know less French than the creoles I fish with in the bayou. Freedom Fries! lol
@razelove Canada defeated American in the war of 1812 lol... American tried to invade 3 times with 3 armies and lost each time. Then gave up, after thousands of dead Americans on Canadian soil. At least get your history right.
America defeated itself the first two times through incompetence and pissing off Native Americans, and the UK did the third time. Good info though, I never knew that we marched on Canada, or that the first two attempts basically went down like the South trying to gather forces during the civil war. Defeating themselves before any military action could occur. I could see why we wouldn't talk about that fun part of the war of 1812 lol. "You see, we thought they were cowards, so we got 10,000 men together, they said they wouldn't go, so we sent 2,000, their plans were leaked, they knew nothing about the terrain, and what do you know, they were routed. So we did the same thing again!"www.history.com/.../how-u-s-forces-failed-to-conquer-canada-200-years-ago
Well it's not to obvious. If we look at China and India with the same amount of guns there would be about half or less shootings when compared to US. Yet Russia would be far higher. Seems like there is definitely more to it than simply the number of guns owned.
@Chriscunning But there are also glaring cultural differences between the US, Russia, China and India. I 'm not so sure a valid comparison can be made. More appropriate nations to compare the US with would be Australia, Canada and Britain.
Definitely agree 100% with cultural differences. But that does not mean easier access and more guns equates to more shootings.
Only 90 ur kidding right? That is 90 too much in my opinion, we only got 5 shootouts in my country since 1945
What other countries, just out of interest?This isn't John Lott's stupid claim, is it? The one where he claimed Europe was more dangerous the America by including all US states that didn't have a mass shooting in the period he looked at, but excluding all European countries that didn't. And said a terrorist attack that made up half the deaths wasn't political/an act of war...
Well, as long as you're doing better than South American countries, there's nothing to worry about, then.
I agree with almost all of what you say, but easy access to guns is not the case in a lot of area's. In fact I couldn't even buy a gun right now if I wanted to, no one has any... lol, Biden has caused such a surge in sales they are all out of stock. Last gun show I went to, was selling ammo only... go figure.Even if in stock, there is still the background checks and of course the hardest part for most people, the cost. This isn't a easy right to exercise if your poor.
@Dragonpurple Well I didn't really mean easy access, but more like "too many already in circulation"
Those in circulation will probably always be there, not really a good easy way to get them out, short of saying... we'll give you 10 grand for each gun you want to sell.I wouldn't sell any of mine for what the government deems the value, as I add time I missed work to attend gun shows, gas, travel and other time (I live rather rural) as part of the value. This isn't something where I can run down to a store in 20 minutes and be done. In fact the first gun I ever bought, I had to drive 3 hours to the store, that had the best deal... wait 3 days for the background check to clear then drive 3 hours back again... that is a total of 12 hours of driving, 6 hours for each trip.Since then there is closer gun stores, now within an hour, but back then there was no other choice.Ironically liberals will complain about people not being able to get out to vote to exercise their rights, but don't seem to care that poor folk can't get out to exercise their 2nd amendment right.