Is it time to talk about guns?

Mass shootings don't get far when the attacker's targets are carrying.

 

the first thing that comes to mind is the prohibitive cost of 'carrying'.

also, is that the utopia you envision?

Violence is vile and guns in that context lend themselves only to violence.

Mass shootings are part of the problem. The solution is to dramatically reshape the way we regulate weaponry, socialize our youth to reject violent behavior of any kind, and stop turning our collective noses up at solutions from other countries; ours is in the outhouse latrines' sump when it comes to gun violence.

 

Shane

Because its s about trying to lessen the possibility of guns falling into the hands of the criminal and irresponsible.

Do you want that?

If a criminal gets into a house and steals a TV that TV is not a weapon and very unlikely to be used as one.

Well once is too many - that is the point

If a person loses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a fine and/or banned from owning a gun.

Due diligence - reasonable steps taken by a person to avoid committing an offence.

 

Trudge

As is a matter of record I grew up in the countryside and as a teenager was a member of a gun club but I moved on and now live in a big city. To repeat I could own a gun now but I don’t see the point as I live in a city where there is no hunting, where vermin are destroyed by professionals and I don’t fear being attacked.

 

Sorry that is plainly and obviously incorrect especially in the area of US gun control

As I’ve pointed out earlier

It is like having some scales and on the gun control side is heaped rational and reasonable argument, evidence, comparison, research and statistics and on the pro gun side there is a petulant teenager stamping its foot and screaming no.

At this point there is no equivalence of argument, there is an inability on one side to defend their stance but even given that a refusal to change their mind on it.

That is why the pro-gun lobby are just rehashing and representing the same arguments that have been repeatedly made already without ever addressing the many outstanding criticisms of them.

PS: And please don’t claim (as many have in the past) to have already addressed criticisms only then to be unable to say where or actually repeat them

 

Evidence please?

 

Horse

LOL oh so you haven’t read the thread

Maybe you could go back and read it and then address the outstanding criticisms of the pro-gun lobby stance

 

I have read the thread mate. We have come to different conclusions. You have chosen to spit your conclusions out and as such the burden of proof lies upon yer shoulders.

So again I ask you

Evidence please?

 

Horse

Have you?

My evidence is the content of the thread, I don’t know how you could have come to other conclusions if you had read it.

So I have given my conclusions based on the evidence if you dispute them then the burden is on you to refute them.

Let’s see, for example you could start by producing any argument put forward against the proposed gun control measures that you think don’t have valid criticism against them?

 

Some folk have observed (rightly; look it up) that the United States leads the developed world in gun violence.
Also, the United States is the world's largest arms dealer (look it up), and has the highest civilian gun ownership in the world (look it up), and the most permissive gun laws of any developed nation (look it up).
Some folks have also wondered how this situation might be ameliorated while respecting the rights of legitimate stakeholders, and have made some suggestions, including Federal regulation.

Other folks have reacted with "SISSY COMMIE LIBTARDS ARE COMING TO TAKE AWAY ALL OUR GUNS! GRRRR! RALLY 'ROUND THE FLAG, BOYS! LOCK AND LOAD! GRRRR! WE'RE ARMED AND READY! GRRRR!".

No; in toto the two arguments have not been even remotely equivalent.

It's like playing chess with pigeons. No matter your moves, they knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and strut about as if they won.

 

Piobaire

I wouldn’t characterise it as exactly like that but if often does seems like it.

I do often get the feeling that for many right wingers just to call something ‘socialism’ or the person suggesting it a ‘socialist’ makes them feel that gives them an instant ‘win’ and that no actual rational counter argument is needed.

 

My Red Ryder did NOT come with a compass in the stock - not even a thing that tells time!

Anti-gun: "I associate guns with pain."



Pro-gun: "I associate guns with pleasure."

 

Shane

Not sure what your argument is here in relation to the subject if you actually wish to lessen the possibility of guns falling into the hands of the criminal and irresponsible?

If a criminal gets into a house and steals a TV that TV is not a weapon and very unlikely to be used as one - so I think a gun which is a very lethal weapon needs to be more securely locked away than a TV

 

If that isn't already the case I don't understand why, It only makes sense that people get educated on a tool that can potentially be lethal or dangourus to both them selfs and others. (Oh BTW I'm not american)

That should be an obvious one

Sounds fair enough

I would probably rephrase this to something along the lines of "limmit the ammount of ammunition that can legally be stored along the gun"
Ammunition in it self is not dangourus, due to newtons law that "every action must have an equal and oposite reaction" in the case of ammunition that mean that the projectil/bullet will not travel very far, because the casing travels backwards, and because the casing is often lighter than the projectile/bullet the casing is will travel the futhest.

I agree to that, but I'll add to it, that the psycological evaluation should be carried out continuesly in order for the permit to be maintained, how long time should pass between evaluations, I don't know.

I would actually say not just a fine, but also a charge for being an acomplise to whatever crime that gun might have been involved in, after all to me not reporting your gun stolen seems a bit weird and kinda shady.

Sorry for the atrocious spelling

 

SCOTUS to Decide Whether Second Amendment Protects Concealed Carry

 

No... Guns are actually violence mitigators.

The lack of them is why the mass shootings are possible. They occur in gun-free and gun-restricted environments.

An armed society is a polite society.

 

You can call it moving on; I call it regressing.

Now I see it like you do little but focusing on getting money to pay others to solve your problems.

To each his own.

 

That the best you got? lmao

Does the US lead in vehicle numbers, injuries and deaths associated? Hmmm

Are we truly concerned about protecting people and saving lives?

Or are we just counting on appealing to the emotional response of people, in an effort to carry out an ulterior motive?

Why are we getting so excited about a much smaller problem?

Actions speak louder than words.

 

That summarizes the strength and comprehension of those who oppose the US second constitutional amendment.

 

hmmm
Before We Talk Gun Control, Let's Talk Self Control - The Good Men Project

I am afraid that these discussions about gun control miss the more important point. If we are seeking to answer the questions, “what is wrong with society?” “Where does this violence come from?” and “How can we protect our children?” then we must instead be talking about self-control. We have become a nation of self-indulgence.