Some gun related questions for liberals:

Didn't we ban illegal drugs so bad guys wouldn't have access?
And we all know how that turned out.
Leave it to the left to do the same things over and over expecting a different result.

 

Can you explain what an assault weapon is? That way we can all be on the same page

 

Apparently I can't explain that to you.

If this is true why did you single me out and attack my idea?

 

If you notice I put the term in quotation marks that means those weapons commonly called by many "assault weapons."

 

I seriously ask those that are totally against the reforms that are being proposed to try and slow mass killings to help by proposing solutions they are willing to pay for should money be a necessity. Join the discussion in a positive manner so you can be heard.

 

Because you apparently think it's relevant.
When people perceive things inaccurately, they make bad decisions, construct wrongful responses--- Just like a deranged shooter deciding that the people he holds responsible for his misery must die, which is only a mis-conception taken to the extreme.

It's important that we keep rational views of things visible. It's not going to change the minds of some who reject them- but they can't say they never heard it suggested.

I believe we have to look beyond the events and ask about the causes. People who kill are generally acting on what they see as revenge- punishing people they feel have punished them. It can be a specific person, a group- or people period. The whole relationship between people hinges to a great extent on who we believe is responsible for what. Violent people, especially school shooters, hold others responsible for the emotions they feel. If others control their emotions and they are miserable- they think the only way they can relieve that is to force those who control them to change, or punish them for what they have done. This is a very common state of mind, a fundamental flaw present in most minds and mirrored in most of our social representations. However- when this is extreme, it can lead to violence, and to killing.

If you understand this correctly- the basic concept that other people control your emotions cripples a person, steals their power over their own life- and can make them very dangerous. It's as simple as the phrase you've heard many times- "You hurt my feelings". In fact, it is only how we allow what someone says to impact our value that hurts feelings, so for others to have power over you- you must allow it, literally give your power to them. When people have a fear of guns, which is being heavily promoted by the anti-gun movement, the idea of removing that fear is to impose on others rather than controlling themselves and how they think.

Fundamental human psychology; and the difference between a person in charge of themselves and one who's mental state can be manipulated and is in someone else's control to some degree. The more it is, the more unstable and unreasonable that person becomes, while fully believing what they think is true.

Our society has somehow shifted to the position that we are each responsible for what we do and feel, to one where everything we feel is somebody else's fault. In that place- we promote violence and crime without realizing it. Entitlement and "equity" promises are everywhere, from political speeches to TV ads who tell us to get what we deserve- by lawsuit, by politics, by unions, by riots, etc. In many ways, it's profitable as well as popular to shift responsibility for yourself to others, and it's a relief to dodge it, although a misconception. So- the less moral among us promote it, and we get- dumber. The idea life should be easy and equitable is supported; the idea that what happens in your life is up to you- is not. Easy, free, entitled and blaming someone else has become a kind of mantra- and we are literally breeding losers who will become angry, violent people. Then, we will blame the violence they do on something else, the real causes remain unrecognized and unaddressed, and the violence grows.... and the willingness to give politicians more power, give up more of our freedom because they promise to fix it becomes more acceptable.

You're a smart guy. Think on this a bit.

 

Real background checks. A look at the last few mass murderer's social media accounts could have prevented them.

 

That's a reasonable statement. I basically described the core issue in a response to you a couple minutes ago, but not a solution.
Trouble is, the solution will not be popular.

It's a lot like helping someone get out of debt and become financially secure. They don't want to change what they believe or make serious shifts in lifestyle- they just want some lucky break to come their way and solve the problem. But the problem is always the person themselves, and the solution is changing what they believe, so that the decisions they make will change as well.

To change the problem of violence, we must change our assignment of personal responsibility. That can't be done overnight, and could never change all of society- but could change enough of it to greatly improve our condition and reduce our violence. It won't change widely among the people until it changes in the leadership and role models, which have quite literally chosen to destroy the most basic principle of our ability to control our own destiny.

I live by only three rules, for all intents and purposes, they are my bible, and I can write them on a business card. I adopted these over 40 years ago, and it took about 20 years to find them. They work- all the time, every time.

First rule-the foundation- is that I am responsible for myself, for everything I think, say, do or feel..
So is everyone else. No exceptions.

This isn't a man-made rule, only an observation of the principles that nature uses to make life work, which everything except humans understand. It can be taught, but to work- it has to be lived. If you don't, you won't live well. You won't find this being taught or demonstrated in most schools, university's, demonstrated in government or even in most homes- and that is what would have to change. It would have to start at the top, with the members of Congress being held responsible for all their actions. I'm working on a way to do that.....

 

Perhaps violence comes from anger. If that is the case we should be trying to come together not venting our anger. The climate is full of stress. Step one - cool the culture war.

 

The retards in government? If so, I agree completely.

 

Indeed, murder laws don't stop murders (everywhere in the world) but more restrictive gun laws may may decrease gun violence.

Compare to other nations.

 

So you don't know what an assault weapon is either.
I haven't found anyone who does

 

Right!
But in that process- IF we assume that what we do will cool someone else's anger, we will be wrong for the most part. We owe it to others to not manipulate them- but they owe it to themselves to cope with their own reactions and feelings. What offends you depends almost entirely on you. If you are short and see that as a bad thing, you react negatively to anything implying you are short. If you see it as a good thing, you see it as a compliment. I've always been attracted to petite women, and I've seen both reactions to what was, in my view- a compliment.

Self-control includes allowing others the same privilege- and the responsibility. Those who reject that responsibility are another issue. An old friend who was a district judge for 20 years once told me- "The best regulator is the self-regulator. We only need laws because some people will not self-regulate". There will always be some of that. The quality of our society depends on the ratio of those who will to those who won't- and how we respond to bad acts by those who won't.

 

So after 22,000 gun laws on the books in the US, and crime and mass shootings still on the rise, you think more gun laws will have an effect?

 

Not more, but the right gun laws.
I think it would be good if every gun owner had to prove his gun-qualifications from time to time.

 

How would you enforce that?

 

The problem is, they don't enforce the laws we have now.
Criminals from all walks of crime are let out and not prosecuted at all.
We allowed 576 riots to go on for months in this country because we decided to coddle these entitled brats which only embolden them to do more.
Police departments burnt to the ground? The city of Seattle taken hostage? When did we decide to allow these criminals to do as the please?

You want to stop criminals from doing more crime, take the gloves off.

Did you notice what happened in Detroit during all of this? Nothing. Why? Because the chief of police doesn't play there. You attack his officers they attack back.
You get caught burning businesses you get shot. They had civil protest until someone gets out of line and their police force take immediate action.

They didn't post police at each end of the city while allowing looters and criminal to run rampant. They take them head on.

You want to see change? Then the police have to be able to do their jobs. And if they can't, you call in the national guard to put down these brats.
What we saw in 2020 was a political statement from Democrat governors. If you don't accept our form of government, this is what you get and every one of them ORDERED their departments to stand down and refused to call in the NG.

Now they want to blame gun violence on guns. Since gun violence only make up 1.3% of all homicides, why are guns on the top of the list?
Figure it out yet?

 

They don't care about homicide.

If they did, one of their main goals wouldn't be putting criminals back on the streets.

If they cared about homicide, they'd do something about the violent gangs that are already here, and those they freely allow to cross our borders unchallenged.

They don't care how many people die.

They just want people who own guns to all be criminals and for all Americans to worship at the feet of government.

 

Maybe because gun violence is the most spectacular thing for the press?

As I said before: compare your nation to other nations with lower gun violence. Then you'll probably see what's wrong.

 

We could start by not calling people names and begin dealing with issues, facts and ideas. It does offend me when you say and infer things about who I am and what I believe; especially when it is not accurate. There is a huge difference between saying something like "I disagree with border policy" and "democrats want more illegal aliens because they hate America and want to cheat during elections." It is suppositions like those that raise the temperature.
I guess it's kind of like you might feel if someone were to call you a racist because you want to change voting laws.

Sometimes people twist things to try and make it look like someone is stupid instead of dealing with the problem at hand. See the following example:

 

You can't cherry pick what you choose to imitate about other governments, what other freedoms do they restrict? Today the world has a mobile population but if you relocate you have to understand why. What did you move for, because your old government was something you couldn't live under or did you move because you felt it was just better to live there? Either way, why would you want to fundamentally change your new country to resemble the things you that caused you to leave?

 

There is zero correlation between a countries lawful access to firearms for citizens and the homicide rates.

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/03/the-correlation-between-guns-and-homicide-rate.html

 

I wish to fundimentally change this country to a place where it is more difficult for bad people to kill innocent people in schools, grocery stores, movies, night clubs, parties, churches, and on the street. Not one rule or one policy will do that but working together we might be able to do that. The problem is too many people are willing to work on this because it is not enough of a proority for them.
There are several areas where this can happen I propose "red Flag" laws and stronger background checks as a starting place for discussion.

 

How much lower can you get from 1.3%? Thats worth disarming an entire nation?

 

And sometimes people who can't dispute something they posted have to make up excuses for the smallest of questions.
Like the question I asked you, What is an assault weapon.

And from that single question you derived it was to twist things to try and make it look like someone is stupid instead of dealing with the problem at hand?
I think you just posted an answer to your own question.
Does asking you what an assault weapon is somehow in your mind meant to make you look stupid?