How to fix the "gun crisis"

[RaleBulgarian]

Because all 18 to 20 year old females should have the life experience of being violently raped, ideally repeatedly? Have gained this useful knowledge, only at age 21 do they gain the right to resist rape in your opinion. That's your point, isn't it?

I've always wondered why anti-gunners in both political parties are so pro-rape. I guess there is a lot of Epstein in nearly all Democratic politicians and even most Republican politicians. They want YOUNG women and don't want to have take "no" for an answer.

This information is undoubtedly not new to you, but you have a sick mind, joko. Seriously, that’s where your brain first takes you? Rape? As a matter of informing your twisted mind, the age group of most female rape victims is between the ages of 13 - 31 according at least one study. So, according to your “logic”, little girls need to be packing.

As for my reasoning, it is about deciding an appropriate age maturity/responsibility to own and carry a firearm. To me, 21 is the lowest age I believe folks should be to legally purchase and own/carry a firearm. I know a lot of young people aren’t even mature enough at that age, but 18 is just too young IMO, so at least a few more years makes sense.

And I would allow for a provision in the law that allows younger people to use firearms, under adult supervision, while hunting or as part of a sport shooting event.

 

[Glitch]

It just takes time and the will.

It will take an effort because it involves changing a culture for many. This is why much of what I am about to say needs to be grandfathered in and will take a generation before we see a major change from these slaughters.

First off, it can't be left up to the states. As we know, no gun zones do nothing because you can cross a street and get a gun.

1) Universal background checks.
2) a ban on semi automatic weapons.
3) universal gun registration
4) a limit on guns owned to one rifle, one hand gun and one shotgun. (grandfathered in)
5) sever limits on magazines.
6) limits on caliber.
7) gun licenses (age 21, permit at age 18. No more kids shooting guns with dad)

BTW, it was Parkland that made me pro gun regulation. The posts from the right after that were awful, just immoral.

All of those are unconstitutional infringements to the Second Amendment. The only acceptable solution is to abolish all laws that infringe on gun ownership.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I'll my piece as I wish. I don't need your ****ing permission.

First, whaaat? And second, don’t get your knickers even more twisted by a suggestion.

 

[VanceMack]

Let's get something straight here.

1. I am a law abiding gun owner myself.
2. I see the world in shades of gray, not black and white.
3. I do not support anything that would take private property from law abiding citizens unless those citizens are deemed unfit to have that personal property.

So no. You are equating driving a vehicle with owning an AR-15 with 100 round drum magazines. Completely different and you know it. You're simply using the most extreme scenarios to confirm your own bias.

Like I said. I will no longer engage with you on this topic because you refuse to be honest about it and are entirely too rigid and puritanical in your Approach.

Lets get somethign straight here.

You are advocating for mindless anti gun measures promoted by people committed to ban firearm ownership and literally none of what you are promoting makes sense or would have any impact.

When you decided to promote universal background checks, did you bother asking yourself "say, self...did background checks stop any of these mass shootings?" And then when you honestly answered yourself did you say "No???!!! then what the **** are you doing promoting them???"

?

 

[jamesrage]

I don't care if you call it a chocolate covered banana - the American people know we don't want them in civilian hands.

If that was actually true then semiautomatic firearms would have been banned a long time ago. Nor would semiautomatic firearms make up a huge chunk of firearms owned by civilians.

 

[joko104]

Let's get something straight here.

1. I am a law abiding gun owner myself.
2. I see the world in shades of gray, not black and white.
3. I do not support anything that would take private property from law abiding citizens unless those citizens are deemed unfit to have that personal property.

So no. You are equating driving a vehicle with owning an AR-15 with 100 round drum magazines. Completely different and you know it. You're simply using the most extreme scenarios to confirm your own bias.

Like I said. I will no longer engage with you on this topic because you refuse to be honest about it and are entirely too rigid and puritanical in your Approach.

And you are equating owning an AR15 with a 100 round drum to the truck that was used in the Oklahoma city bombing. He was a military guy so knew guns are NOT the ideal way to kill the most people. You are simply using selective extreme scenarios to confirm your bias. You deliberately avoid other methods of mass murder used in the USA that killed far, far more people.

In countries where domestic terrorism is common - and they have easy access to full automatic machine guns of any kind and capacity - why do they instead use bombs including car bombs? Your messages are only about wanting to disarm law abiding citizens and hating guns - not about potential future victims.

We all so be thankful for the mystic about guns, AR15s and AR10 by wacko mass murderers. So far, most most mass murderers fortunately have believed in that myth - rather than using bombs and arson.

Thankfully the Vegas shooter brought in pile of ARs - rather than flying his airplane after putting a drum of gasoline in it and minimally killing hundreds by crashing into the huge crowd. Fortunately they are not using arson or a collection of bombs and arson to kill everyone in a high rise condo or downtown skyscaper. Fortunately none have used a big truck going 80 mph thru a huge group of joggers or bicyclists - or children on a charity run. Fortunately none have car-jacked a gasoline carrying semi truck adding crude bombs to the slots for the fill tank driving it into a high school football game. Fortunately none have used drones to deliver bombs.

Nothing will stop a mass murderer from finding a method. Fortunately, if they use a gun we DO have methods we could establish to quickly end the attack. We can't for most other ways. The Department of Homeland Security is not frantically trying to prevent mass shooting. They are frantically trying to stop mass bombings.

A mass shooter is the EASIEST to limit stop and limit the number of deaths IF we established practices to be able to do so. How many LESS would have died if instead the 9/11 attackers and Oklahoma City bomber had instead used an AR15?

 

[joko104]

What's your threshold for calling something a crisis? In my opinion, and based on how many gun control advocates treat other problems, there isn't one with guns.

How many lives do you reckon would be saved by these draconian restrictions, and what is your basis for thinking so.

Across human history, the rich and powerful - and governments - have always wanted disarmed peasant. They want us defenseless - but certainly not themselves.

 

[TurtleDude]

It just takes time and the will.



It will take an effort because it involves changing a culture for many. This is why much of what I am about to say needs to be grandfathered in and will take a generation before we see a major change from these slaughters.



First off, it can't be left up to the states. As we know, no gun zones do nothing because you can cross a street and get a gun.



1) Universal background checks.



2) a ban on semi automatic weapons.



3) universal gun registration



4) a limit on guns owned to one rifle, one hand gun and one shotgun. (grandfathered in)



5) sever limits on magazines.



6) limits on caliber.



7) gun licenses (age 21, permit at age 18. No more kids shooting guns with dad)







BTW, it was Parkland that made me pro gun regulation. The posts from the right after that were awful, just immoral.

in other words, you want to harass gun owners and start a civil war. banning semi autos shows how clueless your idiotic proposals are

 

[TurtleDude]

More confirmation that a ban on ownership is the ultimate goal.

how many of the bannerrhoids scream that it is unfair to claim that gun bans are their goals. I think some of them push idiocy such as the OP in order to make slightly less malignant schemes appear "reasonable"

 

[haymarket]

If that was actually true then semiautomatic firearms would have been banned a long time ago. Nor would semiautomatic firearms make up a huge chunk of firearms owned by civilians.

Not true by any stretch of the imagination due to the political power of the NRA.

 

[TurtleDude]

If that was actually true then semiautomatic firearms would have been banned a long time ago. Nor would semiautomatic firearms make up a huge chunk of firearms owned by civilians.

can anyone actually make a rational argument against this standard?


if CIVILIAN police departments can use a firearm on our streets and carry them in our places of business, assembly and recreational areas, than lawful citizens should be able to KEEP those same weapons in their home and use them for lawful purposes in other areas

 

[vegas giants]

So your solution is to continue to speak in vast generalities, dehumanize gun owners by diminishing them down to the ideological perspective they hold, white wash the concerns of those citizens in a holier than thou crusade against their codified rights?

You do realize this is one of the reasons the right wing wins, right?

Why would I dehumanize gun owners when I am one?

 

[vegas giants]

Thank you for proving my point.

I accept your concession that your plan does not work anywhere on earth

 

[jamesrage]

Not true by any stretch of the imagination due to the political power of the NRA.

The NRA is a 5 and half million member group. There is no way they have that much power. The reason semiautomatic firearms are not banned at the federal level is because gun owners make up a huge chunk of the base of the republican party and have semiautomatic firearms. New York and California have draconian gun control laws because a huge chunk of the democrat base are anti-2nd amendment trash.

 

[joko104]

I do not agree with your generalization; I tend to vote more democratic and I do not support banning guns. Red flag laws are not banning guns, in any capacity. Do SOME democrats support banning guns? Yes, but not all.

I hope you are correct. There are certain issues that greatly harm the Democratic Party, just like issues that hurt the Republican Party. On the Republican side I would put pro-life at the top of that list. On the Democratic Party side it is support of mass illegal immigration, followed by demands to outlaw/take away people's guns regardless of the rationalizations for it.

While I would not be a lost vote as I absolutely would not vote Democratic - due to intense opposition to the Democratic Party and not pro-Republican - the demands to outlaw guns that use magazines or semi-automatics would cost me minimally tens of thousands of dollars - if not much more. I doubt any person who the Democratic Party took their gun away from would ever vote Democratic again. That would be a single, decisive issue.

However, Democratic strategists have been freaking out over out radical the Democratic candidates for president are talking and I noticed AOC, Omar and that team have either gone silent OR the MSM and press that are just propaganda outlets refuses to continue to cover them.

 

[apdst]

I accept your concession that your plan does not work anywhere on earth

You plan is a 100% failure. But, the point was, you people won't entertain anything that doesn't involve restricting gun rights. Thanks for playing.

 

[haymarket]

The NRA is a 5 and half million member group. There is no way they have that much power.

Perhaps not today. Not after the royal ass kicking they received after the 2016 elections.

But for a long time they perpetuated this myth that the political parties bough into rightly or wrongly that they were among the most powerful lobbies in Washington and could p[ush people around come election time and that explains their long time power in Congress regarding guns.

 

[vegas giants]

You plan is a 100% failure. But, the point was, you people won't entertain anything that doesn't involve restricting gun rights. Thanks for playing.

Listen it is fine if your plan is to sprinkle pixie dust over every american.

But I will point out your plan does not work anywhere on earth

 

[jamesrage]

Perhaps not today. Not after the royal ass kicking they received after the 2016 elections.

But for a long time they perpetuated this myth that the political parties bough into rightly or wrongly that they were among the most powerful lobbies in Washington and could p[ush people around come election time and that explains their long time power in Congress regarding guns.

Nonsense. Gun owners make a up huge chunk of the republican voter base.Its why republicans tend not to vote for idiotic gun control laws that anti-2nd amendment trash propose. Gun owners don't make up a huge chunk of the democrat voter base and why states like California and New York can enact all the anti-2nd amendment laws they want while states like Oklahoma and Texas can have the most pro-2nd amendment laws in the country.

 

[haymarket]

Nonsense. Gun owners make a up huge chunk of the republican voter base.Its why republicans tend not to vote for idiotic gun control laws that anti-2nd amendment trash propose. Gun owners don't make up a huge chunk of the democrat voter base and why states like California and New York can enact all the anti-2nd amendment laws they want while states like Oklahoma and Texas can have the most pro-2nd amendment laws in the country.

Interesting. Can you provide those statistics for me please just so that claim can be verified?

 

[jamesrage]

can anyone actually make a rational argument against this standard?


if CIVILIAN police departments can use a firearm on our streets and carry them in our places of business, assembly and recreational areas, than lawful citizens should be able to KEEP those same weapons in their home and use them for lawful purposes in other areas

This is why I think firearm and other related manufactures,repair shops and dealers should be pressured to impose the same kind of restrictions on states that impose certain firearm restrictions of civilians. For example if a state says you can't have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds and can't have a AR15 modern sporting rifle then government agencies and law enforcement in those states should not be allowed to get those as well.

 

[jamesrage]

Interesting. Can you provide those statistics for me please just so that claim can be verified?

One only has to look at the gun control laws in California, New York and Illinois to see that what I said is true. Because if the NRA is as powerful as you said they are then those states shouldn't even have those gun control laws in the first place.

 

[haymarket]

One only has to look at the gun control laws in California, New York and Illinois to see that what I said is true.

Where did that gun come from that was used in Gilroy a week ago last Sunday?

Where do a lot of the guns in Chicago come from?

 

[haymarket]

This is why I think firearm and other related manufactures,repair shops and dealers should be pressured to impose the same kind of restrictions on states that impose certain firearm restrictions of civilians. For example if a state says you can't have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds and can't have a AR15 modern sporting rifle then government agencies and law enforcement in those states should not be allowed to get those as well.

Police officers on duty ARE NOT CIVILLIANS.

ci·vil·ian
/səˈvilyən/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
a person not in the armed services or the police force.
synonyms: nonmilitary person, noncombatant, ordinary citizen, private citizen; informalcivvy
"the slaughter of unarmed civilians"
adjective
adjective: civilian
1.
of, denoting, or relating to a person not belonging to the armed services or police.
"military agents in civilian clothes"
synonyms: nonmilitary, noncombatant, civil; informalcivvy
"civilian casualties"

It is stupid and nonsensical to pretend that they are. The standards for what the armed forces and law enforcement professional need are far far far different than civilians.

You are comparing apples to cinder blocks then wondering why you keep chipping your teeth on that grey pie filling.

 

[jamesrage]

Police officers on duty ARE NOT CIVILLIANS.



It is stupid and nonsensical to pretend that they are. The standards for what the armed forces and law enforcement professional need are far far far different than civilians.

You are comparing apples to cinder blocks then wondering why you keep chipping your teeth on that grey pie filling.

AR15 modern sporting rifles are not weapons of war but yet you keep insisting they are.