The Onion is really going in after this Vegas thing..
Replies
-
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."
every single one of them
The founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment to allow southern states to continue to organize slave-catching militias.
In the 21st century there is no practical reason for it to exist. None.4 -
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.
Sure - slavery is legal, women can't vote, drinking is illegal, etc., the US Constitution can never be changed.8 -
They do the same for all the mass shootings, just change the names. Also , the simple fact that "all the mass shootings" is a thing is really *kitten* depressing.0
-
They do the same for all the mass shootings, just change the names. Also , the simple fact that "all the mass shootings" is a thing is really *kitten* depressing.
they've run this article 5 times. same copy, word for word. same headline. just just change the city name and the photo.
0 -
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.0 -
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.2 -
WorkerDrone83 wrote: »peppermintpudgy wrote: »Yes, you’re right. Everyone on MFP probably agrees about how this latest horrific tragedy demonstrates the necessity of more stringent gun control in the US. We had a productive talk about it in another thread yesterday that did not turn ugly or get moderated.
Haha. OK. I see your point.
I think it's interesting how quickly the topic of gun control comes up (which really is divisive). Nobody wants to talk about mental illness or any other possible factors.
I think that's because gun control is sometjing that CAN be controlled and accounted for, plus theoretically the point of control is to get it out of the hands if tbe unstable. Mental illness is much more unpredictable, and harder to control.0 -
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
I don't understand the logic behind this concept.
Why commit crimes in Chicago then? ...and the trafficking patterns don't work this way.
Why limit the state boundaries? Criminals traffic all manner of illegal products across national borders as well.
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.
why not?
every gun in the hands of a criminal was originally owned by a "law abiding citizen."
every single one of them
The founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment to allow southern states to continue to organize slave-catching militias.
In the 21st century there is no practical reason for it to exist. None.
wow. lmao. wow. haha. ok. you rid the world of guns and when I'm the last one to own one i'll give up mine too. gimme a shout when that happens.
Thanks0 -
There have been photos of him (and 1 video, not yet taken down) showing him at a anti Trump rally.
If you live in a echo chamber and have been told that the POTUS is "literally Hitler" and do not have the critical thinking skills to question what your hearing you would want to lash out at the people that put "literally Hitler" into office. Where else would you find a higher concentration of "deplorables" than a country music concert?
Scott Adams (of Dilbert) theorized this. He also predicted Trump's victory when "polls" had him at less than 10% chance of winning.
For the record Adams was a Sanders guy if I remember correctly.0 -
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.
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?5 -
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.
3 -
0
-
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...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.
Have you ever been to a shoe sale at Macy's?1 -
WorkerDrone83 wrote: »peppermintpudgy wrote: »Yes, you’re right. Everyone on MFP probably agrees about how this latest horrific tragedy demonstrates the necessity of more stringent gun control in the US. We had a productive talk about it in another thread yesterday that did not turn ugly or get moderated.
Haha. OK. I see your point.
I think it's interesting how quickly the topic of gun control comes up (which really is divisive). Nobody wants to talk about mental illness or any other possible factors.
I think that's because gun control is sometjing that CAN be controlled and accounted for, plus theoretically the point of control is to get it out of the hands if tbe unstable. Mental illness is much more unpredictable, and harder to control.
this is where everyone misses the BIG picture. it doesn't get it out of the hands of anyone. it changes "perhaps" where they go to buy it or steal it. but you can't "control" millions of guns that already exist in society with gov regulation.
hell, maybe they were ok at one point and bought the gun at that point and now are unstable.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.
why not?
every gun in the hands of a criminal was originally owned by a "law abiding citizen."
every single one of them
The founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment to allow southern states to continue to organize slave-catching militias.
In the 21st century there is no practical reason for it to exist. None.
And Al Gore invented the internet.4 -
@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.0 -
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.
Is this a new development? He had no criminal record. I have yet to hear that he purchased any one of his dozens of weapons illegally.
Did something go wrong? Yeah, absolutely. It is harder to get Pseudoephedrine than it is a gun.
no sorry. i have no new info. my hunch is that somewhere along the line, we will discover points of alarming information that got ignored or over looked. we usually do in these things. total guess.0 -
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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions