What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[gatorbait]

Just now, LeviF91 said:

 

Ignorant?  No.  Condescending?  Yes, because you're just another in a long line of fudds who have no real interest in 2nd amendment rights as long as they can shoot durr and try to zero in their .30-06 for 6 hours taking up 3 benches at the range.

You mad bro? You’re ignorant to the fact that tons of gun owners like myself think certain guns should be made illegal or harder to get. You worry about the 2nd amendment while we worry about the safety of our family out in public. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

20 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

If any of the numbers you quoted could easily be lessened by legislation, it would be worth considering.  It is a preventable vs unpreventable issue at the heart of it.  Of course, voluntary risks such as sports are not worth talking about unless those sports are killing non participants.  Most of what you mention otherwise, are not preventable.  Some future shooting may be preventable however if we, as a society, could come up with some reasonable changes...short of confiscating all guns.

 

Those non gun problems you mention are not terrorizing our society either.  Ever increasing shootings are and will do that.  More guns, as we will no doubt have going forward, will likely make things worse.  Again, to say there is no problem here worth considering legislation is extremely cold.

Bob, the problem is that of value systems.

 

Yours, apparently, does not place a premium value on freedom; where as mine does.

 

The value I place on freedom overwhelms any desire I have to mitigate consequences of having freedom.  Freedom is messy, and allows for maximizing human choices, both good and bad; but it is the optimal condition for humans to live under.

 

These two value systems, yours and mine, are irreconcilable.

 

But here's the deal:  I like me and my value system more than I like you and yours, so I'm going to keep mine, defend it with my guns, and tell you to !@#$ right off.

 

 

14 minutes ago, gatorbait said:

An assault rifle is any rifle used by infantry. Doesn’t matter if they have autos and we have semi’s they are still assault weapons. You come across as extremely ignorant and condescending just so you know. 

He comes off as condescending.  You are coming off as ignorant.  Him, not so much.

Edited February 15, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[bdutton]

The problem has NEVER been the gun.

 

The technology (magazine fed, semi auto) has existed for over a century.

 

The issue of mass shootings of unarmed victims has only been a recent phenomenon (since the mid 1970's).

 

Find the root cause and stop wasting time treating the symptoms (gun control).

Edited February 15, 2018 by bdutton

[gatorbait]

15 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

He comes off as condescending.  You are coming off as ignorant.  Him, not so much.

Would you prefer the term military style rifle over assault rifle? It’s asinine to think the term assault weapon is just a politicized tool of the lefties. 

[bdutton]

On 2/14/2018 at 7:15 AM, The_Dude said:

 

But it as far as loopholes go, I have used a site to buy and sell guns private party. I use a website called theoutdoorstrader.com. 

Ive basically quit using it. I just don’t want to be the guy that sells a maniac a gun. But yeah, I’d ban private party sales. An FFL should process all sales. 

 

 

 

But how do you enforce a ban.  It's a post fact crime.  You cannot prevent the sales... only enforcing the crime of selling the gun IF you catch the buyer doing something illegal with the gun.  In ALL states, its already illegal to sell to someone you know to be a prohibited person.  So how does adding another layer of legal hoops to jump through make us safer?

[B-Man]

 

6 minutes ago, gatorbait said:

Would you prefer the term military style rifle over assault rifle? It’s asinine to think the term assault weapon is just a politicized tool of the lefties. 

 

No, (sadly) that is exactly what is used for.

 

 

 

 

If someone (see Charlottesville) murders somebody with a car..................it's their fault

 

If someone murders somebody with a knife...............it is their fault

 

If someone murders you with a gun.........................it's the guns fault

 

Until liberals can explain that better, then I think that I will remain skeptical when they say they don't want to take away all guns.......

 

"We just want (fill in the blank)"

 

 

.

 

 

.

Edited February 15, 2018 by B-Man

[gatorbait]

4 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

No, (sadly) that is exactly what is used for.

 

 

 

 

If someone (see Charlottesville) murders somebody with a car..................it's their fault

 

If someone murders somebody with a knife...............it is their fault

 

If someone murders you with a gun.........................it's the guns fault

 

Until liberals can explain that better, then I think that I will remain skeptical when they say they don't want to take away all guns.......

 

"We just want (fill in the blank)"

 

 

.

 

 

.

We agree that idiots who blame the guns are missing the point. For the record I want it to be more difficult to buy certain weapons. That is sensible gun control. Things don’t always have to be so drastic or extreme, like taking all our guns or infringing upon our second amendment.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

6 minutes ago, gatorbait said:

We agree that idiots who blame the guns are missing the point. For the record I want it to be more difficult to buy certain weapons. That is sensible gun control. Things don’t always have to be so drastic or extreme, like taking all our guns or infringing upon our second amendment.  

The problem is that we can't uninvent the gun, and that laws only matter to the law abiding.

 

The problem is not law abiding citizens.  The problem is those who would break the law; and if one is willing to break laws and kill people then a law telling them they can't do something less horrific won't stop them.

 

Laws disarming people, or outlawing certain weapon types only impact the law abiding, and the law abiding are not the problem.

[Justice]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The problem is that we can't uninvent the gun, and that laws only matter to the law abiding.

 

The problem is not law abiding citizens.  The problem is those who would break the law; and if one is willing to break laws and kill people then a law telling them they can't do something less horrific won't stop them.

 

Laws disarming people, or outlawing certain weapon types only impact the law abiding, and the law abiding are not the problem.

I see you’re point, but wasn’t this Cruz kid a law abiding citizen until he wasn’t? 

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, Justice said:

I see you’re point, but wasn’t this Cruz kid a law abiding citizen until he wasn’t? 

Irrelevant to the point.

 

Someone willing to break the law to murder someone else is not likely to concern themselves with the legality of obtaining firearms; and we know that prohibition is an ineffective deterrent to acquisition.

Edited February 15, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[row_33]

11 minutes ago, Justice said:

I see you’re point, but wasn’t this Cruz kid a law abiding citizen until he wasn’t? 

 

he gave out warning signs so now the experts are saying we should be giving Rorschach and MMPI tests to everyone each morning to see if they might snap.....

 

 

[Justice]

The problem is how will we know before it’s too late? And why does this seem to be a problem exclusively in the US?

[IDBillzFan]

51 minutes ago, Justice said:

That’s a good question and one I don’t have an answer for. All I know is it’s hard to reload without extra clips, but I’m sure you’ll have a problem with that too. 

 

It depends on what kind of clips you're talking about. Hair clips? Bag clips? Paper clips?

 

The problem you're facing is that you keep trying to advocate for something that has little to nothing to do with what you *think* it does, which makes it seem like you're just trying to advance someone else's agenda.

 

Let me say it again; you can count magazines, you can limit their capacity, you can limit the number of bullets you can buy, you can even make people take psychology exams to determine if they should carry a gun, but absolutely NONE of that would come close to stopping those who want to kill people with a gun.

 

If someone wants to get a gun and shoot up a school, they will find a way. 

 

And please don't give me the whole "If we could only save one life" routine because if you or anyone truly believed in that theory, you'd be helping to build a wall along Mexico with your own money, sweat and materials and fighting to defund Planned Parenthood.

[Bob in Mich]

Just now, Justice said:

The problem is how will we know before it’s too late? And why does this seem to be a problem exclusively in the US?

 

It's the economy, stupid!   Oh wait, no.  I meant it's the guns   That is the difference

[IDBillzFan]

Just now, Bob in Mich said:

 

It's the economy, stupid!   Oh wait, no.  I meant it's the guns   That is the difference

 

I've kind stayed away from your posts, but damn, it's like you're determined to prove to the entire board that gatorman ISN'T the biggest dumbass here.

 

Keep up the good work.

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

13 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

If someone wants to get a gun and shoot up a school, they will find a way. 

 

The argument that a highly determined person will shoot up the school regardless of laws is not really a sound reason to do nothing.

 

Why not make it a very difficult thing to do?  Maybe someone less mentally capable, wealthy, or determined will be stymied.  Why not put time delays in the process to maybe allow someone to calm down?  To say nothing should be done because that fix wouldn't stop everyone is something a dumb!@#$ would say..

Edited February 15, 2018 by Bob in Mich

[Tiberius]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221

 

Quote

President Donald Trump quietly signed a bill into law Tuesday rolling back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to purchase a gun.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

9 minutes ago, Justice said:

The problem is how will we know before it’s too late? And why does this seem to be a problem exclusively in the US?

You can't know before it's too late.

 

But fortunately these shootings are not an epidemic.  They are so exceedingly rare that you're just as likely to die being attacked by a dog, and only 2.5x more likely to die in a mass shooting than of being constipated.

[Bob in Mich]

6 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

I've kind stayed away from your posts, but damn, it's like you're determined to prove to the entire board that gatorman ISN'T the biggest dumbass here.

 

Keep up the good work.

 

 

 

If you don't think the difference in gun violence between the US and other countries is the guns, you are doubtless a dumb !@#$k

[The_Dude]

5 hours ago, Tiberius said:

How many other countries have mass shootings like this all the time? 

 

Muslim ones. Yup.