Gun Control needs to be instituted

yes, he wants to ban them all. He only thinks the government and felons should have firearms

 

There is in intelligent debate, then again denyin it is so much easier than seeing your assertion invalidated.

 

Can you provide a reputable cite for the existence of this alleged rule?

 

See, it's comments like, "He only thinks felons should have firearms", that go up my ass sideways. While I disagree with his stance on banning guns. To claim he WANTS felons to have guns is asinine. No one, other than felons, want felons to own guns. Come on man.

 

if you push a scheme that bans legal gun ownership , you have to take ownership of the obvious results.

 

Taking ownership of the results is totally fine. I’m onboard with that. But to claim he WANTS felons to have guns is just silly.

 

I think some who want to ban guns want that but I will concede not all of them do but at best, they certainly are willing to accept that result.

 

Again, the definition of what are dangerous-to-a-large-group-of-people guns needs to be defined by those that have more knowledge of that. Assault weapons with high capacity magazines should be banned. There is absolutely no reason for any one person to carry those.

 

How would this work? How would a gun store know whether or not Joe Schmo has a "bad temper" or has stated at one point in his life that he hates so and so?

 

most likely by demanding months long waiting periods and a complete psychiatric analysis etc-in other words, a de facto ban on someone being able to buy a gun.

 

People who think like you do are precisely a good reason why the rest of us need to own such weapons. And your definition of a high capacity magazine is based on spite and ignorance rather than any objective considerations.

 

Much depends on who falls under this label "crazy and hates everyone".

If a schizophrenic person believes that the Pope is giving him secret orders to assassinate the mailman, then it would be appropriate to prevent him from having guns.

If someone is merely afraid of spiders, then it would not be appropriate to prevent them from having guns.

The lack of clarity on what you mean by "crazy and hates everyone" makes it hard to comment.

Ordinary physics would likely place a limit on the number of guns that a person could carry.

I am still unclear what guns you are referring to. Full auto weapons have been heavily restricted for some 90 years now.

I feel that Strict Scrutiny provides reasonable guidelines for determining what should be allowed or disallowed.

I'm unsure what sort of guidelines and restrictions you might mean.

I think it is reasonable to require guns to be secured safely when they are not being carried.

And also for there to be some amount of training requirements in order to acquire a concealed carry license.

Again, I feel that Strict Scrutiny provides reasonable guidelines for determining what should be allowed or disallowed.

 

If you are ever in the unfortunate position of having to confront armed and multiple assailants, you would quickly find a very good reason to have and be proficient with an AR-15 etc.

Trust me...

Thanks,

 

Assault weapons were all but banned some 90 years ago.

The few that remain in civilian hands have never been used to commit a crime, so there is no need for any further restrictions.

 

You cannot present a sound argument to this effect.

 

Not so strange considering that it happened so long ago, and well before articles were posted online digitally.

I suspect that if I knew the name of the guy who had his guns seized I might be able to search up an online article. But alas I do not remember his name.

 

c'mon, use your brain. This is not about the "gun store owner" having to know anything. This is about there being a national list of people that have at some point in their lives been documented (someone reported it and there is a record it somewhere) that they have threatened to do something like that. Social Media perhaps? and as such, the gun store owner can check the list and deny the sale.

So many of these mass killing people have been recorded somewhere (usually Social Media) their threats or their hate-filled minds toward someone who they have never met (such as the guy that attacked Pelosi's husband). These are the people who should be denied the means to carry out their threats.

This will NOT solve the problem totally as someone who wants to do something will find any means with which to carry out his ideas. Nonetheless, we do have to make it HARDER for them to do it. It will reduce the problem (not solve it).

Simply stated, "something" doable needs to be done to reduce the amount of killings that we are seeing in the U.S.

Here are a couple of articles you should read as to why things are worse in the U.S. than in other equally compared countries:
{quote]
How gun control works in America, compared with 4 other rich countries
In general, the US has very relaxed gun laws compared with its developed peers.

How gun control works: There are several barriers to buying a gun in America, but there are generally so many loopholes in the current laws — even fairly restrictive city and state laws — that most people can buy a gun without too much of a problem.

Some people are technically prohibited from buying guns. People who are underage (under 18 for rifles and shotguns, and under 21 for other guns), someone convicted or indicted for a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than one year, fugitives from justice, the severely mentally ill, unlawful users of controlled substances, those convicted of domestic violence, and undocumented immigrants are among some of the categories of people barred from buying a firearm by federal law.

Some types of guns are also restricted. Under federal law, fully automatic weapons are technically legal only if made before 1986, so it's illegal to manufacture new automatic weapons for civilian use. Automatic weapons also tend to have more restrictions and registration requirements than other guns. Meanwhile, semiautomatic and non-automatic firearms are generally legal, barring state laws. And some states also ban high-capacity ammunition magazines. [/quote]

and

This is why we have such a big gun problem here in the U.S.

 

You said it.................."IF". How often does that happen? and even if it happens once in a blue moon, do we allow thousands to be killed/sacrificed just to save you on that "once in a blue moon situation?

 

and[/QUOTE]
Ah...so you want people running to the govt to report someone lost their temper at one point and therefore shouldn't be allowed to exercise their free right. You really think it's realistic for govt to have a running list of people who have a bad temper or at one point made a threat?

 

You are right that they were banned many years ago but they can still be purchased EASILY. What do you say about that?

Our gun laws are not being supported (we are lax about that).

 

Ah...so you want people running to the govt to report someone lost their temper at one point and therefore shouldn't be allowed to exercise their free right. You really think it's realistic for govt to have a running list of people who have a bad temper or at one point made a threat?[/QUOTE]

One thing that I DO KNOW is that we need to do something about the inordinate number of people getting killed here in the U.S. that are not guilty of anything, much like the 288 children killed in mass shooting (compared to the second nation in the world with 8 children killed). That is a greater injustice than anything you can come up with as a defense for allowing guns to be bought in extraordinary numbers and with ability to kill many within minutes, without much of an attempt to stop it.

 

Your claim, above, is false, and you knew it was false when you made it.
AR15s are used in mass shootings to murder, on average, fewer than 50 people per year.

 

It -should- be easy to exercise -all- of our rights.

 

Love of freedom and civil liberties is a good thing.

Violating people's civil liberties for no reason is wrong.

To the correct interpretation that upholds the intent of the Founding Fathers.

Fake news. Free people don't bother justifying themselves with nonsense about "need".

We go buy guns if we feel like buying them. No justification required.

It is curious that people who oppose civil liberties always invoke some variation of "reasonable". It never fails.

Nonsense. The only people here who avoid reason are the gun control advocates.

Abolishing freedom would be bad.

Guns are not doing any sort of harm.

But our freedom would be well worth it even if they were.

The only point of gun control is to inconvenience people for no reason.

Not really. Danger has nothing to do with anything.

We merely go buy guns if we choose to do so. We don't justify that decision to anyone.

It is more that we recognize that the well being of society is not the point of gun control.

The only point of gun control is to hassle people for no reason.