The Onion is really going in after this Vegas thing..
Options
Replies
-
DianaPrinceDET wrote: »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.
why not?
every gun in the hands of a criminal was originally owned by a "law abiding citizen."
You keep saying this but it isn’t true. Guns are stolen from factories, stores, brought over illegally from other countries. They are not all originally owned by law abiding citizens.
Yep, there are also Straw Purchases (both legal & illegal), and government operations like, as mentioned before, Fast & Furious1 -
jessiferrrb wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »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.
Ignore what he said. Most people who support gun control do not want to disarm the general public. They want more regulations. That's it.
agreed. nobody is coming to take your legally owned guns away. but maybe you register them, and if you sell, lose or have it stolen then you report it. of course that doesn't solve every contingency, but it's a minimal burden with a large potential upside.
the vegas shooter purchased 33 fire arms legally in 1 year. that would be a huge red flag if he'd had to register them instead of sliding under the radar by staggering the purchases throughout the year and with various vendors. *maybe* he would have found another way to commit mass murder. *maybe* it would not have been as devastating of a loss of life. we don't know, but that shouldn't prevent us from trying to limit deaths from mass shootings in any way we can.
Yup...
And to add to that, gun shops are required to report multiple handgun purchases to the ATF under federal law...but not multiple rifle purchases which creates a loophole where people can stockpile assault rifles, which also contributes to gun trafficking.0 -
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »Motorsheen wrote: »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.
Which would better benefit the City of Chicago:
more gun laws?
... or a far greater percentage of fathers living with and actively raising their children?
I always knew every problem in the world was because of men.
haha. good one.0 -
SomebodyWakeUpHIcks wrote: »@Motorsheen wrote: »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.
Which would better benefit the City of Chicago:
more gun laws?
... or a far greater percentage of fathers living with and actively raising their children?
You, sir, are wise beyond your 75 years.
95...... but whooz counting?1 -
TeacupsAndToning wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »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.
Ignore what he said. Most people who support gun control do not want to disarm the general public. They want more regulations. That's it.
i agree with you. but again.............and again........and again...........you have to focus on the criminal element. this dude while under the radar was a criminal long before pulling the trigger. SO many things went wrong there through this long thought out process.. who knows how far back this stretches. there could be warning signs that will unravel months from now. regulating the gun wouldn't have fixed this.
the big issues is ridding the black market of "current and what my be newly illegal" guns. only that will prevent this sort of thing....from the gun. but we know the gun isn't the only mass murder weapon. and quite honestly, when push comes to shove, people can build a pipe bomb. if they want, they can make a gun too.
this is a huge spider web. its NOT the freaking gun and more regulation. thats just not a big enough viewpoint.
But no one is saying that more regulations on guns is the end game. It's just the easiest first step.
You are very nice. i don't want to upset you. we just disagree on the beneficial impact of the regulations. I see it being an extremely minimal impact to the problem...so much that its not even noticeable. damn near no impact in my mind.
but i'd personally be ok with being checked further when i buy a gun. what if i had depression meds in my history...am I ok? or should i be denied? it gets so sticky so fast...
But don't you think that even if the impact it has is minimal, isn't that a good first step? If it stops, let's say, ten people from owning firearms that they shouldn't, wouldn't that be a good thing? Just because you can't see it doesn't mean that a difference isn't being made.
Sure. I agree. lets write it up! i'm sure we could do it better than any current politician!!
0 -
jessiferrrb wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »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.
Ignore what he said. Most people who support gun control do not want to disarm the general public. They want more regulations. That's it.
agreed. nobody is coming to take your legally owned guns away. but maybe you register them, and if you sell, lose or have it stolen then you report it. of course that doesn't solve every contingency, but it's a minimal burden with a large potential upside.
the vegas shooter purchased 33 fire arms legally in 1 year. that would be a huge red flag if he'd had to register them instead of sliding under the radar by staggering the purchases throughout the year and with various vendors. *maybe* he would have found another way to commit mass murder. *maybe* it would not have been as devastating of a loss of life. we don't know, but that shouldn't prevent us from trying to limit deaths from mass shootings in any way we can.
Background checks were still likely performed for his purchases from FFLs and I'd find it very hard to believe the FBI doesn't keep track of the number of background checks performed against someone. Thing is, there were people buying that many guns within a week as the election approached last year when people feared Clinton would take office and enact stricter gun laws.0 -
I think we should give the Mods a shout out for allowing this dialogue to take place and for all the posters keeping the discussion civil.
10 -
I got my conceal carry when Obama took office. lmao. just in case :P1
-
SomebodyWakeUpHIcks wrote: »I think we should give the Mods a shout out for allowing this dialogue to take place and for all the posters keeping the discussion civil.
agreed. shout out is woo right?1 -
The argument that laws shouldn't be passed because, "Well, criminals don't obey the law." Is idiotic. By that rationale, only laws that will never be broken should be passed?4
-
morehealthymatt wrote: »The argument that laws shouldn't be passed because, "Well, criminals don't obey the law." Is idiotic. By that rationale, only laws that will never be broken should be passed?
no one said laws shouldn't be passed. the intent I believe was that stricter regulations don't impact criminals and burden more the law abiding citizen. I tend to agree.0 -
Caporegiem wrote: »jessiferrrb wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »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.
Ignore what he said. Most people who support gun control do not want to disarm the general public. They want more regulations. That's it.
agreed. nobody is coming to take your legally owned guns away. but maybe you register them, and if you sell, lose or have it stolen then you report it. of course that doesn't solve every contingency, but it's a minimal burden with a large potential upside.
the vegas shooter purchased 33 fire arms legally in 1 year. that would be a huge red flag if he'd had to register them instead of sliding under the radar by staggering the purchases throughout the year and with various vendors. *maybe* he would have found another way to commit mass murder. *maybe* it would not have been as devastating of a loss of life. we don't know, but that shouldn't prevent us from trying to limit deaths from mass shootings in any way we can.
Background checks were still likely performed for his purchases from FFLs and I'd find it very hard to believe the FBI doesn't keep track of the number of background checks performed against someone. Thing is, there were people buying that many guns within a week as the election approached last year when people feared Clinton would take office and enact stricter gun laws.
There are "loopholes" for background checks as well. 26 states have a background check exemption if the purchaser holds some kind of permit or license. Nevada is one of them provided the purchaser has a concealed weapons permit issued on or before 7/1/11.
Given the guys gun purchasing history which goes back 20 years, it wouldn't surprise me if he had a conceal carry permit and thus there wouldn't have been multiple background checks on the 33 weapons he purchased in the last year. Also, while multiple handgun purchases have to be reported to the ATF per federal law, rifle purchases do not...
I could go to Nevada and purchase all of the rifles I wanted to without raising a single red flag because nobody would be the wiser.
Is it possible that just closing some of these loopholes could pay off...just a bit?2 -
cabronlobos wrote: »I'm not trying to bait anyone here, I seriously would like to know, what gun law could have prevented that man from killing and injuring all those people in Las Vegas? I am for anyway from preventing something like that from ever happening again.....but I know of no law that matters if you plan on breaking it anyway.
I agree 110% Cabronlobos!!
0 -
Dear Posters,
I wanted to offer a brief explanation for the locking of this thread. This discussion is welcome to continue in groups.
The forum guidelines include this item:
15. Divisive Topics Are Better Suited For Groups, Not the Main Forums
Divisive topics and posts, particularly those that seek input from or are relevant only to a select group of users, are better placed within an appropriate Group rather than the Main Forums. For example, topics relevant to only one religion should not be placed on the main forums but rather within a group related to that religion.
If you would like to review the forum guidelines, please visit the following link:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
At our discretion, this locked thread may be deleted entirely in the near future.
With respect,
psulemon0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 927 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions