The Onion is really going in after this Vegas thing..
Replies
-
SomebodyWakeUpHIcks wrote: »Chicago has strict gun laws
But Indiana doesn't, which pretty much completely renders Chicago's laws pointless. Local gun regulation will always be pointless when jurisdictions with lax laws are an hour away
In a similar way (albeit illegally) Mexico would render very strict gun control laws in the US pointless. Outlawing something that people really want creates a lucrative black market, and they would come across the southern border just like drugs.
It looks like the maniac that did this lead a very quiet, conventional. law-abiding life for 64 years, and he had the type of background suitable for owning weapons. Something changed him, and his actions in accumulating an arsenal following this change has to be uncovered. The rapid stockpiling of guns and ammo should have alerted someone in his life, whether friends, family, or gun/ammo sales outlets, unless he did this so methodically and carefully that he didn't trigger anyone's suspicion, which would be incredible.0 -
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »I don't live in the United States. I live in Canada where these are the rules on owning a gun:
Canada has a ban on assault rifles and "military" style firearms like the AK 47. A firearm license is required for other guns. A safety test must be taken, and a third person character reference must be obtained.
There is a mandatory background check which includes "criminal, mental health, addiction, and domestic violence records," notes the Library of Congress. Licensing and registration is handled on the national level and must be renewed every five years.
Now, I don't think I know a single person who owns a gun, other than the rare few that own a firearm to go hunting with. That's it. So please realize that I am coming from a place where the concept of owning a gun is very foreign to me.
So, I have two questions for the Americans who don't want stricter gun laws:
1. Do you think the above regulations are stupid and if you do, why?
And please, do not use the argument of "well, if normal people don't have guns then only the criminals will" because that's just not true - from what I understand no one has any intention of taking away the guns purchased for protection, and please also don't use the argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people," because if you truly believe this then we should have no regulations on how to obtain a driver's license or anything else of that nature because "cars don't kill people, people kill people."
2. Do you disagree with the notion that civilians shouldn't own "military" style firearms? And if you do, why?
In my last office, we had 12 people working there.
Of the 12, 8 carried a concealed firearm on their body at all times and I believe most of them also had a firearm (or two) in their car too.
Anyone wanting to walk thru the front door with bad intent would have had a very, very bad day.0 -
There is no solution. sadly. its not the gun that fires itself, its not the box van that drives itself into the crowd of people, its not child that seeks the abuse of a parent or loved one. Somehow we want to navigate to the innocent parts of the equation because we are pressured for the an action..
Its the people that are the problem. and people aren't born adults. they are children that should be raised by loving stable and compassionate parents. preferably two..a mom and dad. yep..i said it. felt like everyone's opinion could be voiced so why not mine.
Maybe now and then...there is the totally random well balanced individual that just "snaps", but my gut tells me that parents...good mature responsible parents...would help a great deal in just raising mini adults into less violent and unstable large adults.
if you cut all the crap........and this was alluded to earlier with the notion that gun laws are more strict today than 30 or more years ago...yet violent guns crimes are worse....I also submit that the decline of the family is a far greater factor than most would ever consider....cuz after all...don't us parents have the right to divorce...and to have sex...and to do whatever we want.....we're ADULTS.. right... this is a much harder pill to swallow...could it be me that is actually to blame to the horrific crime 20 years into the future..... As a parent...my greatest responsibility is to raise my 16yr son to be respectful to his mother, his father, the kids he associates and that girl friend or two that will wonder into his life. its MY responsibility to ensure he respects life...all life. yes, we are hunters...we respect the animal we hunt...we take responsible actions in choosing to fire or not fire...we talk about it...not some other 16yr old friend...Me...Dad. He and I talk...about life and the events that unfold around us in the world.
If i was forced to select the culprit here......i'd have to say the decline of the family. that is the issue.5 -
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »I don't live in the United States. I live in Canada where these are the rules on owning a gun:
Canada has a ban on assault rifles and "military" style firearms like the AK 47. A firearm license is required for other guns. A safety test must be taken, and a third person character reference must be obtained.
There is a mandatory background check which includes "criminal, mental health, addiction, and domestic violence records," notes the Library of Congress. Licensing and registration is handled on the national level and must be renewed every five years.
Now, I don't think I know a single person who owns a gun, other than the rare few that own a firearm to go hunting with. That's it. So please realize that I am coming from a place where the concept of owning a gun is very foreign to me.
So, I have two questions for the Americans who don't want stricter gun laws:
1. Do you think the above regulations are stupid and if you do, why?
And please, do not use the argument of "well, if normal people don't have guns then only the criminals will" because that's just not true - from what I understand no one has any intention of taking away the guns purchased for protection, and please also don't use the argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people," because if you truly believe this then we should have no regulations on how to obtain a driver's license or anything else of that nature because "cars don't kill people, people kill people."
2. Do you disagree with the notion that civilians shouldn't own "military" style firearms? And if you do, why?
1. regulations aren't stupid.
2. its not the firearm. is mass shooting prevention the goal and a few 15 round clips from a semi automatic killing 15 people or 5 people or 3 people somehow more ok?
someday we may learn...its not the gun.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »Motorsheen wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »I don't live in the United States. I live in Canada where these are the rules on owning a gun:
Canada has a ban on assault rifles and "military" style firearms like the AK 47. A firearm license is required for other guns. A safety test must be taken, and a third person character reference must be obtained.
There is a mandatory background check which includes "criminal, mental health, addiction, and domestic violence records," notes the Library of Congress. Licensing and registration is handled on the national level and must be renewed every five years.
Now, I don't think I know a single person who owns a gun, other than the rare few that own a firearm to go hunting with. That's it. So please realize that I am coming from a place where the concept of owning a gun is very foreign to me.
So, I have two questions for the Americans who don't want stricter gun laws:
1. Do you think the above regulations are stupid and if you do, why?
And please, do not use the argument of "well, if normal people don't have guns then only the criminals will" because that's just not true - from what I understand no one has any intention of taking away the guns purchased for protection, and please also don't use the argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people," because if you truly believe this then we should have no regulations on how to obtain a driver's license or anything else of that nature because "cars don't kill people, people kill people."
2. Do you disagree with the notion that civilians shouldn't own "military" style firearms? And if you do, why?
In my last office, we had 12 people working there.
Of the 12, 8 carried a concealed firearm on their body at all times and I believe most of them also had a firearm (or two) in their car too.
Anyone wanting to walk thru the front door with bad intent would have had a very, very bad day.
So what are your answers to my questions?
1. Background check - no worries. I think that happens here anyway (I don't own a gun, so I don't know but I'm in Arizona and guns are everywhere)
2. My co-workers didn't carry military style weapons. They owned some, but didn't bring them into the workspace. A sidearm like a .45 or a 9mm isn't necessarily a military style weapon.
Remember, the 2nd Amendment is for protection from a tyrannical government (or to stem an invasion from Canada).1 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »SomebodyWakeUpHIcks wrote: »Chicago has strict gun laws
But Indiana doesn't, which pretty much completely renders Chicago's laws pointless. Local gun regulation will always be pointless when jurisdictions with lax laws are an hour away
In a similar way (albeit illegally) Mexico would render very strict gun control laws in the US pointless. Outlawing something that people really want creates a lucrative black market, and they would come across the southern border just like drugs.
It looks like the maniac that did this lead a very quiet, conventional. law-abiding life for 64 years, and he had the type of background suitable for owning weapons. Something changed him, and his actions in accumulating an arsenal following this change has to be uncovered. The rapid stockpiling of guns and ammo should have alerted someone in his life, whether friends, family, or gun/ammo sales outlets, unless he did this so methodically and carefully that he didn't trigger anyone's suspicion, which would be incredible.
Mexico is more analogous to Chicago in this situation. Gun laws in Mexico are SUPER strict. But cartels get a steady flow of guns across the boarder FROM the United States.
The US exports illegal guns to Mexico, and Mexico exports illegal drugs to the US.4 -
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »I don't live in the United States. I live in Canada where these are the rules on owning a gun:
Canada has a ban on assault rifles and "military" style firearms like the AK 47. A firearm license is required for other guns. A safety test must be taken, and a third person character reference must be obtained.
There is a mandatory background check which includes "criminal, mental health, addiction, and domestic violence records," notes the Library of Congress. Licensing and registration is handled on the national level and must be renewed every five years.
Now, I don't think I know a single person who owns a gun, other than the rare few that own a firearm to go hunting with. That's it. So please realize that I am coming from a place where the concept of owning a gun is very foreign to me.
So, I have two questions for the Americans who don't want stricter gun laws:
1. Do you think the above regulations are stupid and if you do, why?
And please, do not use the argument of "well, if normal people don't have guns then only the criminals will" because that's just not true - from what I understand no one has any intention of taking away the guns purchased for protection, and please also don't use the argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people," because if you truly believe this then we should have no regulations on how to obtain a driver's license or anything else of that nature because "cars don't kill people, people kill people."
2. Do you disagree with the notion that civilians shouldn't own "military" style firearms? And if you do, why?
Assault weapons have been illegal in the US (with a very narrow range of exceptions) since 1986. Only 3 legally owned assault weapons have been used in murders since the 1930s. So while assault weapons look scary and seem to capture the imagination of the press and certain politicians, they are irrelevant to the gun control discussion.0 -
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »I don't live in the United States. I live in Canada where these are the rules on owning a gun:
Canada has a ban on assault rifles and "military" style firearms like the AK 47. A firearm license is required for other guns. A safety test must be taken, and a third person character reference must be obtained.
There is a mandatory background check which includes "criminal, mental health, addiction, and domestic violence records," notes the Library of Congress. Licensing and registration is handled on the national level and must be renewed every five years.
Now, I don't think I know a single person who owns a gun, other than the rare few that own a firearm to go hunting with. That's it. So please realize that I am coming from a place where the concept of owning a gun is very foreign to me.
So, I have two questions for the Americans who don't want stricter gun laws:
1. Do you think the above regulations are stupid and if you do, why?
And please, do not use the argument of "well, if normal people don't have guns then only the criminals will" because that's just not true - from what I understand no one has any intention of taking away the guns purchased for protection, and please also don't use the argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people," because if you truly believe this then we should have no regulations on how to obtain a driver's license or anything else of that nature because "cars don't kill people, people kill people."
2. Do you disagree with the notion that civilians shouldn't own "military" style firearms? And if you do, why?
As a gun owner living in the U.S. these seem like common sense regulations and I would have no problem abiding by them as a responsible gun owner.
4 -
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »I don't live in the United States. I live in Canada where these are the rules on owning a gun:
Canada has a ban on assault rifles and "military" style firearms like the AK 47. A firearm license is required for other guns. A safety test must be taken, and a third person character reference must be obtained.
There is a mandatory background check which includes "criminal, mental health, addiction, and domestic violence records," notes the Library of Congress. Licensing and registration is handled on the national level and must be renewed every five years.
Now, I don't think I know a single person who owns a gun, other than the rare few that own a firearm to go hunting with. That's it. So please realize that I am coming from a place where the concept of owning a gun is very foreign to me.
So, I have two questions for the Americans who don't want stricter gun laws:
1. Do you think the above regulations are stupid and if you do, why?
And please, do not use the argument of "well, if normal people don't have guns then only the criminals will" because that's just not true - from what I understand no one has any intention of taking away the guns purchased for protection, and please also don't use the argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people," because if you truly believe this then we should have no regulations on how to obtain a driver's license or anything else of that nature because "cars don't kill people, people kill people."
2. Do you disagree with the notion that civilians shouldn't own "military" style firearms? And if you do, why?
Assault weapons have been illegal in the US (with a very narrow range of exceptions) since 1986. Only 3 legally owned assault weapons have been used in murders since the 1930s. So while assault weapons look scary and seem to capture the imagination of the press and certain politicians, they are irrelevant to the gun control discussion.
But didn't he use a semiautomatic? Isn't that generally an assault rifle?
the gun lobby has tried relentlessly to frame "assault rifle" as only meaning fully automatic weapons. Which is a flat out lie meant to obscure the facts.0 -
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »I don't live in the United States. I live in Canada where these are the rules on owning a gun:
Canada has a ban on assault rifles and "military" style firearms like the AK 47. A firearm license is required for other guns. A safety test must be taken, and a third person character reference must be obtained.
There is a mandatory background check which includes "criminal, mental health, addiction, and domestic violence records," notes the Library of Congress. Licensing and registration is handled on the national level and must be renewed every five years.
Now, I don't think I know a single person who owns a gun, other than the rare few that own a firearm to go hunting with. That's it. So please realize that I am coming from a place where the concept of owning a gun is very foreign to me.
So, I have two questions for the Americans who don't want stricter gun laws:
1. Do you think the above regulations are stupid and if you do, why?
And please, do not use the argument of "well, if normal people don't have guns then only the criminals will" because that's just not true - from what I understand no one has any intention of taking away the guns purchased for protection, and please also don't use the argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people," because if you truly believe this then we should have no regulations on how to obtain a driver's license or anything else of that nature because "cars don't kill people, people kill people."
2. Do you disagree with the notion that civilians shouldn't own "military" style firearms? And if you do, why?
1. regulations aren't stupid.
2. its not the firearm. is mass shooting prevention the goal and a few 15 round clips from a semi automatic killing 15 people or 5 people or 3 people somehow more ok?
someday we may learn...its not the gun.
I'm not saying that it's the gun. Of course it's the person that does it. But it would be impossible to force families to raise their children a certain way. That's 100% never going to happen.
What can happen is a change in regulations. Make it harder to obtain certain firearms because yes, it would have been terrible if he'd shot 5 people or 3 people but he didn't. He killed 58 people and hundreds of others were wounded.
but this is precisely the problem. we want a mcdonalds fast food solution. it masks the issue. we need to fix the family. granted very tall order and very very hard. but raising better little people is where its at. the billion dollar question is ......... how. is how so hard that we ignore it... or do we try to chip away at it. .....
i have no answers ....i just can't take my eyes of the Elephant in the room.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »I don't live in the United States. I live in Canada where these are the rules on owning a gun:
Canada has a ban on assault rifles and "military" style firearms like the AK 47. A firearm license is required for other guns. A safety test must be taken, and a third person character reference must be obtained.
There is a mandatory background check which includes "criminal, mental health, addiction, and domestic violence records," notes the Library of Congress. Licensing and registration is handled on the national level and must be renewed every five years.
Now, I don't think I know a single person who owns a gun, other than the rare few that own a firearm to go hunting with. That's it. So please realize that I am coming from a place where the concept of owning a gun is very foreign to me.
So, I have two questions for the Americans who don't want stricter gun laws:
1. Do you think the above regulations are stupid and if you do, why?
And please, do not use the argument of "well, if normal people don't have guns then only the criminals will" because that's just not true - from what I understand no one has any intention of taking away the guns purchased for protection, and please also don't use the argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people," because if you truly believe this then we should have no regulations on how to obtain a driver's license or anything else of that nature because "cars don't kill people, people kill people."
2. Do you disagree with the notion that civilians shouldn't own "military" style firearms? And if you do, why?
As a gun owner living in the U.S. these seem like common sense regulations and I would have no problem abiding by them as a responsible gun owner.
the problem is that it fixes nothing.1 -
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »I don't live in the United States. I live in Canada where these are the rules on owning a gun:
Canada has a ban on assault rifles and "military" style firearms like the AK 47. A firearm license is required for other guns. A safety test must be taken, and a third person character reference must be obtained.
There is a mandatory background check which includes "criminal, mental health, addiction, and domestic violence records," notes the Library of Congress. Licensing and registration is handled on the national level and must be renewed every five years.
Now, I don't think I know a single person who owns a gun, other than the rare few that own a firearm to go hunting with. That's it. So please realize that I am coming from a place where the concept of owning a gun is very foreign to me.
So, I have two questions for the Americans who don't want stricter gun laws:
1. Do you think the above regulations are stupid and if you do, why?
And please, do not use the argument of "well, if normal people don't have guns then only the criminals will" because that's just not true - from what I understand no one has any intention of taking away the guns purchased for protection, and please also don't use the argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people," because if you truly believe this then we should have no regulations on how to obtain a driver's license or anything else of that nature because "cars don't kill people, people kill people."
2. Do you disagree with the notion that civilians shouldn't own "military" style firearms? And if you do, why?
1. regulations aren't stupid.
2. its not the firearm. is mass shooting prevention the goal and a few 15 round clips from a semi automatic killing 15 people or 5 people or 3 people somehow more ok?
someday we may learn...its not the gun.
I'm not saying that it's the gun. Of course it's the person that does it. But it would be impossible to force families to raise their children a certain way. That's 100% never going to happen.
What can happen is a change in regulations. Make it harder to obtain certain firearms because yes, it would have been terrible if he'd shot 5 people or 3 people but he didn't. He killed 58 people and hundreds of others were wounded.
but this is precisely the problem. we want a mcdonalds fast food solution. it masks the issue. we need to fix the family. granted very tall order and very very hard. but raising better little people is where its at. the billion dollar question is ......... how. is how so hard that we ignore it... or do we try to chip away at it. .....
i have no answers ....i just can't take my eyes of the Elephant in the room.
sorry, but the "raise kids better" argument kind of falls apart when you're debating gun control after a man in his 60s shoots over 600 people.5 -
This content has been removed.
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »I don't live in the United States. I live in Canada where these are the rules on owning a gun:
Canada has a ban on assault rifles and "military" style firearms like the AK 47. A firearm license is required for other guns. A safety test must be taken, and a third person character reference must be obtained.
There is a mandatory background check which includes "criminal, mental health, addiction, and domestic violence records," notes the Library of Congress. Licensing and registration is handled on the national level and must be renewed every five years.
Now, I don't think I know a single person who owns a gun, other than the rare few that own a firearm to go hunting with. That's it. So please realize that I am coming from a place where the concept of owning a gun is very foreign to me.
So, I have two questions for the Americans who don't want stricter gun laws:
1. Do you think the above regulations are stupid and if you do, why?
And please, do not use the argument of "well, if normal people don't have guns then only the criminals will" because that's just not true - from what I understand no one has any intention of taking away the guns purchased for protection, and please also don't use the argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people," because if you truly believe this then we should have no regulations on how to obtain a driver's license or anything else of that nature because "cars don't kill people, people kill people."
2. Do you disagree with the notion that civilians shouldn't own "military" style firearms? And if you do, why?
As a gun owner living in the U.S. these seem like common sense regulations and I would have no problem abiding by them as a responsible gun owner.
the problem is that it fixes nothing.
I disagree and have stated up thread why I think registration, etc could be beneficial...it doesn't fix everything but it helps address a lot of issues.2 -
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »I don't live in the United States. I live in Canada where these are the rules on owning a gun:
Canada has a ban on assault rifles and "military" style firearms like the AK 47. A firearm license is required for other guns. A safety test must be taken, and a third person character reference must be obtained.
There is a mandatory background check which includes "criminal, mental health, addiction, and domestic violence records," notes the Library of Congress. Licensing and registration is handled on the national level and must be renewed every five years.
Now, I don't think I know a single person who owns a gun, other than the rare few that own a firearm to go hunting with. That's it. So please realize that I am coming from a place where the concept of owning a gun is very foreign to me.
So, I have two questions for the Americans who don't want stricter gun laws:
1. Do you think the above regulations are stupid and if you do, why?
And please, do not use the argument of "well, if normal people don't have guns then only the criminals will" because that's just not true - from what I understand no one has any intention of taking away the guns purchased for protection, and please also don't use the argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people," because if you truly believe this then we should have no regulations on how to obtain a driver's license or anything else of that nature because "cars don't kill people, people kill people."
2. Do you disagree with the notion that civilians shouldn't own "military" style firearms? And if you do, why?
As a gun owner living in the U.S. these seem like common sense regulations and I would have no problem abiding by them as a responsible gun owner.
the problem is that it fixes nothing.
Why do you believe that?
because thousands upon thousands of these guns exist in the US. You're only addressing the purchase of a new shiny sparkly gun. that's like draining the gulf of mexico before a hurricane with a measuring cup cuz we don't want storm surge.
these are criminals. they will find a gun. the next killer is out there searching one out right now. maybe it takes him a month or six. but he'll find it. if not he'll figure out some other way. a pipe bomb or a box van or a freaking airplane.
still amazes me how people think that putting another regulation onto a law abiding citizen somehow fixes something. i just do see it a productive solution.
i'm not against it....its just not the solution either. IMO0 -
This content has been removed.
-
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »I don't live in the United States. I live in Canada where these are the rules on owning a gun:
Canada has a ban on assault rifles and "military" style firearms like the AK 47. A firearm license is required for other guns. A safety test must be taken, and a third person character reference must be obtained.
There is a mandatory background check which includes "criminal, mental health, addiction, and domestic violence records," notes the Library of Congress. Licensing and registration is handled on the national level and must be renewed every five years.
Now, I don't think I know a single person who owns a gun, other than the rare few that own a firearm to go hunting with. That's it. So please realize that I am coming from a place where the concept of owning a gun is very foreign to me.
So, I have two questions for the Americans who don't want stricter gun laws:
1. Do you think the above regulations are stupid and if you do, why?
And please, do not use the argument of "well, if normal people don't have guns then only the criminals will" because that's just not true - from what I understand no one has any intention of taking away the guns purchased for protection, and please also don't use the argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people," because if you truly believe this then we should have no regulations on how to obtain a driver's license or anything else of that nature because "cars don't kill people, people kill people."
2. Do you disagree with the notion that civilians shouldn't own "military" style firearms? And if you do, why?
1. regulations aren't stupid.
2. its not the firearm. is mass shooting prevention the goal and a few 15 round clips from a semi automatic killing 15 people or 5 people or 3 people somehow more ok?
someday we may learn...its not the gun.
I'm not saying that it's the gun. Of course it's the person that does it. But it would be impossible to force families to raise their children a certain way. That's 100% never going to happen.
What can happen is a change in regulations. Make it harder to obtain certain firearms because yes, it would have been terrible if he'd shot 5 people or 3 people but he didn't. He killed 58 people and hundreds of others were wounded.
but this is precisely the problem. we want a mcdonalds fast food solution. it masks the issue. we need to fix the family. granted very tall order and very very hard. but raising better little people is where its at. the billion dollar question is ......... how. is how so hard that we ignore it... or do we try to chip away at it. .....
i have no answers ....i just can't take my eyes of the Elephant in the room.
sorry, but the "raise kids better" argument kind of falls apart when you're debating gun control after a man in his 60s shoots over 600 people.
your opinion. i respect it. i disagree with it. we are a lifetime in the making. good foundations make good buildings. they don't get better because they've stood on sand for 60 years.1 -
It's worth nothing that only about 30% of American households own a firearm
90% of Americans support stricter gun control
The problem is not so much with AMERICANS (though that is definitely part of it) and with politicians and the terrorist groups they get their money from.1 -
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »I don't live in the United States. I live in Canada where these are the rules on owning a gun:
Canada has a ban on assault rifles and "military" style firearms like the AK 47. A firearm license is required for other guns. A safety test must be taken, and a third person character reference must be obtained.
There is a mandatory background check which includes "criminal, mental health, addiction, and domestic violence records," notes the Library of Congress. Licensing and registration is handled on the national level and must be renewed every five years.
Now, I don't think I know a single person who owns a gun, other than the rare few that own a firearm to go hunting with. That's it. So please realize that I am coming from a place where the concept of owning a gun is very foreign to me.
So, I have two questions for the Americans who don't want stricter gun laws:
1. Do you think the above regulations are stupid and if you do, why?
And please, do not use the argument of "well, if normal people don't have guns then only the criminals will" because that's just not true - from what I understand no one has any intention of taking away the guns purchased for protection, and please also don't use the argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people," because if you truly believe this then we should have no regulations on how to obtain a driver's license or anything else of that nature because "cars don't kill people, people kill people."
2. Do you disagree with the notion that civilians shouldn't own "military" style firearms? And if you do, why?
As a gun owner living in the U.S. these seem like common sense regulations and I would have no problem abiding by them as a responsible gun owner.
the problem is that it fixes nothing.
Why do you believe that?
because thousands upon thousands of these guns exist in the US. You're only addressing the purchase of a new shiny sparkly gun. that's like draining the gulf of mexico before a hurricane with a measuring cup cuz we don't want storm surge.
these are criminals. they will find a gun. the next killer is out there searching one out right now. maybe it takes him a month or six. but he'll find it. if not he'll figure out some other way. a pipe bomb or a box van or a freaking airplane.
still amazes me how people think that putting another regulation onto a law abiding citizen somehow fixes something. i just do see it a productive solution.
i'm not against it....its just not the solution either. IMO
But my issue with this, and with not creating new restrictions, is that then everyone just continues to buy more and more and more guns and there's no chance in hell that that's the right solution.
exactly!! you see the gun is not the issue. so its not the solution either. people can't trust that though. they just can not separate the weapon from the criminal. somehow if this guy didn't have an assault weapon things would have been better....but we do NOT know the answer to that. so "safely" we say GUN..its that damn GUN. then we don't really consider the other factors. we move on to the next bad thing..the next hurricane, the next terror attack..whatever it is.
I don't think fully automatic assault rifles have much of a place in general society. frankly I couldn't afford to burn through that much ammo myself. but had your regulation ideas existed....it may not have mattered at all cuz this guy could have had one for 20 years that no one ever knew about.
so..."IF" you regulate more...you also must remove the regulated weapon from society, all of society criminal and law abiding and or force the regulation on society if its a registering sort of thing. You can't do it. be nice if you could, but you can't.0 -
Gee. If only there were a respected conservative icon who had weighed in on the "can't end all gun crime so why even try" debate?
"While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals."
"… If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land."
1 -
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »I don't live in the United States. I live in Canada where these are the rules on owning a gun:
Canada has a ban on assault rifles and "military" style firearms like the AK 47. A firearm license is required for other guns. A safety test must be taken, and a third person character reference must be obtained.
There is a mandatory background check which includes "criminal, mental health, addiction, and domestic violence records," notes the Library of Congress. Licensing and registration is handled on the national level and must be renewed every five years.
Now, I don't think I know a single person who owns a gun, other than the rare few that own a firearm to go hunting with. That's it. So please realize that I am coming from a place where the concept of owning a gun is very foreign to me.
So, I have two questions for the Americans who don't want stricter gun laws:
1. Do you think the above regulations are stupid and if you do, why?
And please, do not use the argument of "well, if normal people don't have guns then only the criminals will" because that's just not true - from what I understand no one has any intention of taking away the guns purchased for protection, and please also don't use the argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people," because if you truly believe this then we should have no regulations on how to obtain a driver's license or anything else of that nature because "cars don't kill people, people kill people."
2. Do you disagree with the notion that civilians shouldn't own "military" style firearms? And if you do, why?
As a gun owner living in the U.S. these seem like common sense regulations and I would have no problem abiding by them as a responsible gun owner.
the problem is that it fixes nothing.
Why do you believe that?
because thousands upon thousands of these guns exist in the US. You're only addressing the purchase of a new shiny sparkly gun. that's like draining the gulf of mexico before a hurricane with a measuring cup cuz we don't want storm surge.
these are criminals. they will find a gun. the next killer is out there searching one out right now. maybe it takes him a month or six. but he'll find it. if not he'll figure out some other way. a pipe bomb or a box van or a freaking airplane.
still amazes me how people think that putting another regulation onto a law abiding citizen somehow fixes something. i just do see it a productive solution.
i'm not against it....its just not the solution either. IMO
But my issue with this, and with not creating new restrictions, is that then everyone just continues to buy more and more and more guns and there's no chance in hell that that's the right solution.
exactly!! you see the gun is not the issue. so its not the solution either. people can't trust that though. they just can not separate the weapon from the criminal. somehow if this guy didn't have an assault weapon things would have been better....but we do NOT know the answer to that. so "safely" we say GUN..its that damn GUN. then we don't really consider the other factors. we move on to the next bad thing..the next hurricane, the next terror attack..whatever it is.
I don't think fully automatic assault rifles have much of a place in general society. frankly I couldn't afford to burn through that much ammo myself. but had your regulation ideas existed....it may not have mattered at all cuz this guy could have had one for 20 years that no one ever knew about.
so..."IF" you regulate more...you also must remove the regulated weapon from society, all of society criminal and law abiding and or force the regulation on society if its a registering sort of thing. You can't do it. be nice if you could, but you can't.
But trying to do it would be a hell of a lot easier than trying to track the mental health of every American gun owner.
0 -
Gee. If only there were a respected conservative icon who had weighed in on the "can't end all gun crime so why even try" debate?
"While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals."
"… If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land."
you say that with no consideration to the fact that GREATER regulation currently exists today than 30 years ago and yet mass gun violence is far greater today.
Frankly it amazes me that anyone trusts the government for more regulation on anything. they can't get anything done correctly. somehow on guns though.....hell, lets do it! more regulation.3 -
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »I don't live in the United States. I live in Canada where these are the rules on owning a gun:
Canada has a ban on assault rifles and "military" style firearms like the AK 47. A firearm license is required for other guns. A safety test must be taken, and a third person character reference must be obtained.
There is a mandatory background check which includes "criminal, mental health, addiction, and domestic violence records," notes the Library of Congress. Licensing and registration is handled on the national level and must be renewed every five years.
Now, I don't think I know a single person who owns a gun, other than the rare few that own a firearm to go hunting with. That's it. So please realize that I am coming from a place where the concept of owning a gun is very foreign to me.
So, I have two questions for the Americans who don't want stricter gun laws:
1. Do you think the above regulations are stupid and if you do, why?
And please, do not use the argument of "well, if normal people don't have guns then only the criminals will" because that's just not true - from what I understand no one has any intention of taking away the guns purchased for protection, and please also don't use the argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people," because if you truly believe this then we should have no regulations on how to obtain a driver's license or anything else of that nature because "cars don't kill people, people kill people."
2. Do you disagree with the notion that civilians shouldn't own "military" style firearms? And if you do, why?
As a gun owner living in the U.S. these seem like common sense regulations and I would have no problem abiding by them as a responsible gun owner.
the problem is that it fixes nothing.
Why do you believe that?
because thousands upon thousands of these guns exist in the US. You're only addressing the purchase of a new shiny sparkly gun. that's like draining the gulf of mexico before a hurricane with a measuring cup cuz we don't want storm surge.
these are criminals. they will find a gun. the next killer is out there searching one out right now. maybe it takes him a month or six. but he'll find it. if not he'll figure out some other way. a pipe bomb or a box van or a freaking airplane.
still amazes me how people think that putting another regulation onto a law abiding citizen somehow fixes something. i just do see it a productive solution.
i'm not against it....its just not the solution either. IMO
But my issue with this, and with not creating new restrictions, is that then everyone just continues to buy more and more and more guns and there's no chance in hell that that's the right solution.
exactly!! you see the gun is not the issue. so its not the solution either. people can't trust that though. they just can not separate the weapon from the criminal. somehow if this guy didn't have an assault weapon things would have been better....but we do NOT know the answer to that. so "safely" we say GUN..its that damn GUN. then we don't really consider the other factors. we move on to the next bad thing..the next hurricane, the next terror attack..whatever it is.
I don't think fully automatic assault rifles have much of a place in general society. frankly I couldn't afford to burn through that much ammo myself. but had your regulation ideas existed....it may not have mattered at all cuz this guy could have had one for 20 years that no one ever knew about.
so..."IF" you regulate more...you also must remove the regulated weapon from society, all of society criminal and law abiding and or force the regulation on society if its a registering sort of thing. You can't do it. be nice if you could, but you can't.
But trying to do it would be a hell of a lot easier than trying to track the mental health of every American gun owner.
yea. i'm not saying not to...the results may be 25 years down the road...but its not the end all be all. and some people feel like their freedoms are infringed upon more and more these days so its not a popular route to take.0 -
It is becoming obvious that the totality of gun owners, an overwhelming majority of whom are very responsible, rational, conscientious, and play by the rules, are going to face the reality that a loss of rights / liberty is inevitable due to the insanity of a small group of mentally ill people. This is counterintuitive (disarming responsible people because the world is getting too dangerous), and in reality, disarming a lot of people will make for good optics but will make zero difference, because mentally ill and evil people find a way to obtain weapons and kill people, as we have seen over the past few years in multiple countries with very strict gun control in Western Europe.3
-
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »I don't live in the United States. I live in Canada where these are the rules on owning a gun:
Canada has a ban on assault rifles and "military" style firearms like the AK 47. A firearm license is required for other guns. A safety test must be taken, and a third person character reference must be obtained.
There is a mandatory background check which includes "criminal, mental health, addiction, and domestic violence records," notes the Library of Congress. Licensing and registration is handled on the national level and must be renewed every five years.
Now, I don't think I know a single person who owns a gun, other than the rare few that own a firearm to go hunting with. That's it. So please realize that I am coming from a place where the concept of owning a gun is very foreign to me.
So, I have two questions for the Americans who don't want stricter gun laws:
1. Do you think the above regulations are stupid and if you do, why?
And please, do not use the argument of "well, if normal people don't have guns then only the criminals will" because that's just not true - from what I understand no one has any intention of taking away the guns purchased for protection, and please also don't use the argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people," because if you truly believe this then we should have no regulations on how to obtain a driver's license or anything else of that nature because "cars don't kill people, people kill people."
2. Do you disagree with the notion that civilians shouldn't own "military" style firearms? And if you do, why?
As a gun owner living in the U.S. these seem like common sense regulations and I would have no problem abiding by them as a responsible gun owner.
the problem is that it fixes nothing.
Why do you believe that?
because thousands upon thousands of these guns exist in the US. You're only addressing the purchase of a new shiny sparkly gun. that's like draining the gulf of mexico before a hurricane with a measuring cup cuz we don't want storm surge.
these are criminals. they will find a gun. the next killer is out there searching one out right now. maybe it takes him a month or six. but he'll find it. if not he'll figure out some other way. a pipe bomb or a box van or a freaking airplane.
still amazes me how people think that putting another regulation onto a law abiding citizen somehow fixes something. i just do see it a productive solution.
i'm not against it....its just not the solution either. IMO
But my issue with this, and with not creating new restrictions, is that then everyone just continues to buy more and more and more guns and there's no chance in hell that that's the right solution.
exactly!! you see the gun is not the issue. so its not the solution either. people can't trust that though. they just can not separate the weapon from the criminal. somehow if this guy didn't have an assault weapon things would have been better....but we do NOT know the answer to that. so "safely" we say GUN..its that damn GUN. then we don't really consider the other factors. we move on to the next bad thing..the next hurricane, the next terror attack..whatever it is.
I don't think fully automatic assault rifles have much of a place in general society. frankly I couldn't afford to burn through that much ammo myself. but had your regulation ideas existed....it may not have mattered at all cuz this guy could have had one for 20 years that no one ever knew about.
so..."IF" you regulate more...you also must remove the regulated weapon from society, all of society criminal and law abiding and or force the regulation on society if its a registering sort of thing. You can't do it. be nice if you could, but you can't.
But trying to do it would be a hell of a lot easier than trying to track the mental health of every American gun owner.
yea. i'm not saying not to...the results may be 25 years down the road...but its not the end all be all. and some people feel like their freedoms are infringed upon more and more these days so its not a popular route to take.
I really couldn't care less about peoples feelings. People are dying. I care about people dying. Save your feelings for your safe space.
0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »It is becoming obvious that the totality of gun owners, an overwhelming majority of whom are very responsible, rational, conscientious, and play by the rules, are going to face the reality that a loss of rights / liberty is inevitable due to the insanity of a small group of mentally ill people. This is counterintuitive (disarming responsible people because the world is getting too dangerous), and in reality, disarming a lot of people will make for good optics but will make zero difference, because mentally ill and evil people find a way to obtain weapons and kill people, as we have seen over the past few years in multiple countries with very strict gun control in Western Europe.
You can't disarm law abiding citizens. good lord. you can't do that. nothing else to say.2 -
I like boobies.5
-
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »I don't live in the United States. I live in Canada where these are the rules on owning a gun:
Canada has a ban on assault rifles and "military" style firearms like the AK 47. A firearm license is required for other guns. A safety test must be taken, and a third person character reference must be obtained.
There is a mandatory background check which includes "criminal, mental health, addiction, and domestic violence records," notes the Library of Congress. Licensing and registration is handled on the national level and must be renewed every five years.
Now, I don't think I know a single person who owns a gun, other than the rare few that own a firearm to go hunting with. That's it. So please realize that I am coming from a place where the concept of owning a gun is very foreign to me.
So, I have two questions for the Americans who don't want stricter gun laws:
1. Do you think the above regulations are stupid and if you do, why?
And please, do not use the argument of "well, if normal people don't have guns then only the criminals will" because that's just not true - from what I understand no one has any intention of taking away the guns purchased for protection, and please also don't use the argument of "guns don't kill people, people kill people," because if you truly believe this then we should have no regulations on how to obtain a driver's license or anything else of that nature because "cars don't kill people, people kill people."
2. Do you disagree with the notion that civilians shouldn't own "military" style firearms? And if you do, why?
As a gun owner living in the U.S. these seem like common sense regulations and I would have no problem abiding by them as a responsible gun owner.
the problem is that it fixes nothing.
Why do you believe that?
because thousands upon thousands of these guns exist in the US. You're only addressing the purchase of a new shiny sparkly gun. that's like draining the gulf of mexico before a hurricane with a measuring cup cuz we don't want storm surge.
these are criminals. they will find a gun. the next killer is out there searching one out right now. maybe it takes him a month or six. but he'll find it. if not he'll figure out some other way. a pipe bomb or a box van or a freaking airplane.
still amazes me how people think that putting another regulation onto a law abiding citizen somehow fixes something. i just do see it a productive solution.
i'm not against it....its just not the solution either. IMO
But my issue with this, and with not creating new restrictions, is that then everyone just continues to buy more and more and more guns and there's no chance in hell that that's the right solution.
exactly!! you see the gun is not the issue. so its not the solution either. people can't trust that though. they just can not separate the weapon from the criminal. somehow if this guy didn't have an assault weapon things would have been better....but we do NOT know the answer to that. so "safely" we say GUN..its that damn GUN. then we don't really consider the other factors. we move on to the next bad thing..the next hurricane, the next terror attack..whatever it is.
I don't think fully automatic assault rifles have much of a place in general society. frankly I couldn't afford to burn through that much ammo myself. but had your regulation ideas existed....it may not have mattered at all cuz this guy could have had one for 20 years that no one ever knew about.
so..."IF" you regulate more...you also must remove the regulated weapon from society, all of society criminal and law abiding and or force the regulation on society if its a registering sort of thing. You can't do it. be nice if you could, but you can't.
But trying to do it would be a hell of a lot easier than trying to track the mental health of every American gun owner.
yea. i'm not saying not to...the results may be 25 years down the road...but its not the end all be all. and some people feel like their freedoms are infringed upon more and more these days so its not a popular route to take.
I really couldn't care less about peoples feelings. People are dying. I care about people dying. Save your feelings for your safe space.
lmao. you mad bro? come on now. don't be testy.3 -
First off, this discussion has been surprisingly pleasant. We all come from different places so I find it super useful to hear other viewpoints. If anyone cares to respond to my thoughts, I also promise to listen respectfully:Soul_Radiation wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »2. Do you disagree with the notion that civilians shouldn't own "military" style firearms? And if you do, why?
I think civilians should be able to own whatever a regular soldier would carry as their main weapon. If that becomes man portable laser guns...then I think we should be able to buy man portable laser guns.
That is...unless we change our constitution.
You bring up a good point. It's constitutional, and therefore we should stick by gun ownership rights. But for example, drivers' licenses are regulated: driving can be deadly. Nobody argues with regulations on drivers' licenses: it's not seen as a violation of a person's right to drive. Obviously the parallels aren't quite the same because the "right to drive" is not in the constitution (because heh, the world has changed in 250 years). But regulations on driving have made citizens safer while allowing most of the population to enjoy the freedom to drive. And nobody argues either with keeping tanks and other military-grade driving equipment off of civilian roadways and out of civilian hands. Why can't we take the same approach with guns?
And gun violence doesn't happen in a vaccum. We can predict it, to some extent. Here's an example: there is a strong connection between domestic violence and mass shootings. We could use this to help identify future perpetrators of mass violence. This does not mean we should take guns away from citizens with clean and responsible records, but that if we can better pay attention to these red flags we can remove a person from access to weapons until they get treatment/help.
The constitution says guns are a right; they are a right. But there are DEFINITELY things we can do to curb gun violence; throwing up our hands and feeling helpless is not an option anymore, and we have to stop seeing gun regulation as antithetical to our constitutional right to bear arms.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions