Gun control

[marinera]

Many suicides are committed in a burst of depression, having a firearm under hand Will make a decisive difference. Those Who are saved whilst attempting suicide most of the time don't commit suicide laterali on. Analogous considerations Stands for homicide.

 

[jrizzle2015]

Someone who decides to build a house will do it either way. But it sure helps to have a hammer.

Exactly. The ease with which a gun can be used has an impact.

Not many people strangle themselves to death with there own hands. Because it is hard to do. Let's just be aware of that fact: guns make it much much easier to kill yourself. It doesn't require much prep work. Using a rope takes a bit more time.

Also, I am not saying we can do away with all suicide. There will always be suicide but there are probably steps we can take to limit and reduce the number.

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

Exactly. The ease with which a gun can be used has an impact.

Not many people strangle themselves to death with there own hands. Because it is hard to do. Let's just be aware of that fact: guns make it much much easier to kill yourself. It doesn't require much prep work. Using a rope takes a bit more time.

Also, I am not saying we can do away with all suicide. There will always be suicide but there are probably steps we can take to limit and reduce the number.

Debatable, but I do see your point. Problem is that there is no way to know if someone purchasing a firearm is or ever has been suicidal, or ever will be later on. I'm a firm believer that while guns may present an "easier opportunity", it is the person's conscious decision to use it.

 

[Klingsor]

I'm a firm believer that while guns may present an "easier opportunity", it is the person's conscious decision to use it.

As far as legislation goes, it doesn't have to be either/or. You can have laws limiting people's "conscious decisions" (I'm not just talking suicide here), *and* gun regulation.

(In fact, we do.)

 

[phonehome]

In all the different aspects where some one ends up dead and a gun was the "tool" that was used the question is for the NRA types is "why do you INSIST on making it so GD easy"

For all those who can NOT legally buy a firearm IE "can't pass a background check" I do NOT want the "gunshow loophole" to exist. I want them to have to "buy one on the street" in some dark "back ally" where they run the risk of getting caught in some kind of "sting operation" or get beat up and robbed by someone who never had a gun to sell them in the first place or they buy some 50 year old POS that does not even fire or blows up in there faces on the first shot or in the case of a semiauto jams after every other round. rather than being able to walk into someplace and without as much exchanging first names just plunk down the right amount of cash and buy a brand new never been fired, guaranteed to work firearm from a "gun dealer" who just happens to NOT have an FFL which makes it all "legal"

Some will not put in the extra effort to find that back ally or be too scared to go into that dark back alley, some will but not leave without a firearm or end up with a big paper weight.

For the ones who for what ever reason can not get their hands on a gun I WANT them to TRY to "just use something else"

I want them to be forced into trying to build a IED AKA a "pipebomb" some will not be able to find the directions to do it, some even with direction will not be able to come with all the parts/ingredients and of the ones that do the end result is on no way "guaranteed to work" Often they are "duds" which means the first how ever many need to be tested, a chance to be "detected" and maybe caught by LE or they get killed during the testing.

I want them to be forced into using knives or clubs or "their bare hands" That guy in Japan the same day as Sandy hook stabbed like 20 people NONE of then died. Depending on the size of the victim and the perp the victim of a beating either with a club or fists/feet stands a good chance of living much better than if the 5'1" perp has a Glock with a 30 round mag that he just bought down at the fairgrounds who easily KILLS 5 or 6 big strong guys who individually would have no problem kicking his ass.

 

[jrizzle2015]

for me it is not just about one issue. Murder suicide threatening abuse. It is all of them together that helps create my desire for some sort of gun control.

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

In all the different aspects where some one ends up dead and a gun was the "tool" that was used the question is for the NRA types is "why do you INSIST on making it so GD easy"

For all those who can NOT legally buy a firearm IE "can't pass a background check" I do NOT want the "gunshow loophole" to exist. I want them to have to "buy one on the street" in some dark "back ally" where they run the risk of getting caught in some kind of "sting operation" or get beat up and robbed by someone who never had a gun to sell them in the first place or they buy some 50 year old POS that does not even fire or blows up in there faces on the first shot or in the case of a semiauto jams after every other round. rather than being able to walk into someplace and without as much exchanging first names just plunk down the right amount of cash and buy a brand new never been fired, guaranteed to work firearm from a "gun dealer" who just happens to NOT have an FFL which makes it all "legal"

Some will not put in the extra effort to find that back ally or be too scared to go into that dark back alley, some will but not leave without a firearm or end up with a big paper weight.

For the ones who for what ever reason can not get their hands on a gun I WANT them to TRY to "just use something else"

I want them to be forced into trying to build a IED AKA a "pipebomb" some will not be able to find the directions to do it, some even with direction will not be able to come with all the parts/ingredients and of the ones that do the end result is on no way "guaranteed to work" Often they are "duds" which means the first how ever many need to be tested, a chance to be "detected" and maybe caught by LE or they get killed during the testing.

I want them to be forced into using knives or clubs or "their bare hands" That guy in Japan the same day as Sandy hook stabbed like 20 people NONE of then died. Depending on the size of the victim and the perp the victim of a beating either with a club or fists/feet stands a good chance of living much better than if the 5'1" perp has a Glock with a 30 round mag that he just bought down at the fairgrounds who easily KILLS 5 or 6 big strong guys who individually would have no problem kicking his ass.

Can't say I disagree.

 

[Klingsor]

It occurs to me that the people *against* restricting guns are typically *for* restricting abortions.

Which is a little strange, since presumably the same argument--"they'll just get one illegally"--would apply in both cases.

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

It occurs to me that the people *against* restricting guns are typically *for* restricting abortions.

Which is a little strange, since presumably the same argument--"they'll just get one illegally"--would apply in both cases.

I'm actually kind of "middle of the road" on both.

 

[marinera]

It occurs to me that the people *against* restricting guns are typically *for* restricting abortions.

Which is a little strange, since presumably the same argument--"they'll just get one illegally"--would apply in both cases.

They are also often against marijuana legalization but have no problems with their son drinking half bottle of whiskey before dinner. Because alcohol 'Is legal'.

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

They are also often against marijuana legalization but have no problems with their son drinking half bottle of whiskey before dinner. Because alcohol 'Is legal'.

Again, I'm on the other side.

I think legally married interracial gay couples should be able to guard their plentiful marijuana fields with AK-47's & M16's with 100 round magazines, all the while teaching their adopted children the values of entrepreneurship and business.

 

[marinera]

Again, I'm on the other side.

I think legally married interracial gay couples should be able to guard their plentiful marijuana fields with AK-47's & M16's with 100 round magazines, all the while teaching their adopted children the values of entrepreneurship and business.

 

[Klingsor]

Again, I'm on the other side.

I think legally married interracial gay couples should be able to guard their plentiful marijuana fields with AK-47's & M16's with 100 round magazines, all the while teaching their adopted children the values of entrepreneurship and business.

You had me at "legally married interracial gay couples."

And lost me somewhere after that.

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

You had me at "legally married interracial gay couples."

And lost me somewhere after that.

I may *sound* like a right wing fluke, but I am far from it.

 

[halcyondays]

A well regulated militia (volunteers), being NECESSARY to the security of a free State, the right of THE PEOPLE (doesn't specify "just the military", therefore EVERYONE) to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Just in case you forgot what it actually says.

LOL! When my father volunteered to fight in WWII he went into combat on Iwo using the squirrel rifle he owned.

Not.

 

[Klingsor]

I may *sound* like a right wing fluke, but I am far from it.

And I may *sound* like a left wing snowflake, but . . .

Oh, wait. Never mind.

 

[rbkwp]

make a point of never wearing my guns to social events

hope that helps!

firm believer in the wonderful 'open carry' tho
what an amazing piece of law that is?

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

make a point of never wearing my guns to social events

hope that helps!

firm believer in the wonderful 'open carry' tho
what an amazing piece of law that is?

I make a point of never letting anyone know I'm armed. I don't like physically advertising.

 

[AdamHenry]

The problem with the gun control issue is no common ground between the two political parties. On the right, it's a free for all. "we can't regulate any of this because it's a right"(2A). Any common sense is voided. It's also due to a reasonable fear of what the left wants. Yes, they are tools, but they are tools made for taking life. I don't care how you look at it, It's a weapon of conflict and it needs to be regulated with universal background checks and transfers between private parties except family. If we as gun owners don't rein in some of this buffoonery on our own, the other side will go out of their way trying. Conservatives, for some reason can't figure that out.

The left says "were not gonna take your guns away." If you live in a place run by Liberals and follow the gun control laws to a tee, you know that's a lie. No, they can't physically take them from you, except California. They have the Armed Prohibited Person's Database that comes with registration. If you get flagged for a number of reasons, the CA DOJ will send an armed entry team unannounced with a Warrant to your house (Thanks to the Isla Vista Shooter) and take your stuff away. With a stroke of a pen, they turn unknowingly law abiding gun owners into criminals. The laws are so plenty and confusing, Cops have a hard time translating this mess. If you live in California like me and you stay up with the numerous gun control bills that are written year after year, you know better. The Dems in New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, California, DC, Colorado, and soon to be Washington State and Oregon are legislating away the Second Amendment. They are never happy with the plethora of laws already enacted in their states and will continue to dream up new bills to make the 2nd almost impossible to practice. It's a death by a thousand cuts approach. San Francisco just legislated the last gun store in their city out of business last year. Nancy Skinner (D) Berkeley floated a bill to confiscate registered assault rifles from the first ban in 2001 After Isla Vista. It didn't get any traction (Thank you Gov. Brown) "We're not taking your guns away. Just the ones we think you shouldn't have" Confiscation is confiscation. The NRA knows this and will not come to the bargaining table with the Liberals. If you think I'm making all this up, Google it. Go to any gun control website and read the comments. Hillary said herself she wanted "Australian style gun control" The Aussies had to give up their guns after an active shooter incident in 1996. It was confiscation. Either Hillary Clinton didn't know what the fuck she was talking about or she was lying to the American people. Ted Kennedy (AKA the Liberal Lion) made comments of banning ammo if they can't take away the 2nd Amendment. Diane Fienstein said that if she had her way, she would have Mr and Mrs America turn in their guns. Feinstein also had a CCW while she was mayor of San Francisco. It was good her but not you. Google it.

With those two contrasting ideas for gun control, we are decades away from any meaningful safeguards on a national level.

 

[185248]

It is too late for the US to have any form of gun control. If anyone wishes to read through the 266 pages in this particular forum, they will find it has all been said before.

The above poster is another who is wrong again about Australian gun law. Next time someone wishes to post about Australian gun law, ask someone who knows.

Like most every other political forum, stop repeating the same codswallop and spend the 10 minutes you sit on your arse creating a post which has been said at least 2 times before more creatively.