Now is not the time to talk about gun control (8 Viewers)

[brandon]

T&P

10 killed in Boulder shooting: Victims identified, suspect charged

Police said 10 people were killed, including an officer, after a shooting at a King Soopers grocery store in Boulder, Colorado.

www.google.com

 

[Lapaz]

All of that is fine, but we are stuck because we won’t be able to change it.

It might help if more people were educated about the confusing text, in order to build a case to clarify it. Of course then we would need a consensus about which interpretation serves us best. I think most reasonable people recognize that it is necessary to infringe on people's individual rights to bear arms, because some arms are too lethal and some people are too dangerous or irresponsible. So we already know we have to infringe on people's rights, which means that interpretation is unreasonable. That only leaves the other interpretation as reasonable, which means that militias must be allowed to possess arms, yet they must themselves be regulated.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

All that said - these mass shooters very often have no criminal record, like this one. So enforcing repeat offender laws wouldn’t have stopped this one, although it couldn’t hurt for all the daily shootings.

That's right. We have to stop selling AR15s commercially period. That would at least make it more difficult to acquire the weapon.

 

[Lapaz]

I am fine with no longer manufacturing an AR style rifle. I don’t know how it’s done as far as banning them though. Magazine limits are fine with me as well. 5 rounds mags work just fine. You know people can build their own by purchasing kits. When Obama was running for President lowers we’re impossible to find. Same with Hillary. People bought them “just in case” they were banned. These lowers can be turned into rifles or handguns. How do you recover them? How do you compensate people who have spent so much money? I personally think a 5 round mag should be the limit. People can still hunt with them but just have to change mags more often. For the record most gun owners would consider me a traitor for suggesting this. When people tell me it’s to defend against a tyranny I just shake my head. What is a little .223 round going to do when they land an Apache in your front yard and level your home?

We can buy back any arms that were previously legal, such as high round magazines. The savings in lives and savings from not having to add extra security may offset that cost. It seems to have worked well in Australia.

We shouldn't stop there. Other things are needed, such as putting capitalism to work by requiring liability insurance coverage for guns. I own a couple, and I would buy the insurance. Make it cheaper for people that use protections like safes or other gun safety technologies like smart guns, just as we pay less for cars that are not as dangerous and have extra security.

 

[Semper]

Semper - just saw one of your posts - I agree we do not enforce the laws on the books for repeat offenders. I would also add - if you threaten your domestic partner, your guns get confiscated. So many people are killed by their domestic partners and there are always warning signs.

All that said - these mass shooters very often have no criminal record, like this one. So enforcing repeat offender laws wouldn’t have stopped this one, although it couldn’t hurt for all the daily shootings.

It wouldn’t have changed this at all. But it’s a start? You want a firearm then fine. Annual training, permits etc. Now I ask what about the poor guy who just wants to hunt. He looks forward to putting the game into his freezer every year. Helps with the bills etc by having meat. Yes I know this is a rarity but are we pricing lower incomes their ability to hunt or exercise a second amendment right?

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

It wouldn’t have changed this at all. But it’s a start? You want a firearm then fine. Annual training, permits etc. Now I ask what about the poor guy who just wants to hunt. He looks forward to putting the game into his freezer every year. Helps with the bills etc by having meat. Yes I know this is a rarity but are we pricing lower incomes their ability to hunt or exercise a second amendment right?

No one is after hunters. You don't need an AR15 to hunt.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

What happened to the NRA:

"A sharp right turn

By the mid-1970s, a dissident group within the NRA believed that the organization was losing the national debate over guns by being too defensive and not political enough. The dispute erupted at the NRA’s 1977 annual convention, where the dissidents deposed the old guard.

From this point forward, the NRA became ever more political and strident in its defense of so-called “gun rights,” which it increasingly defined as nearly absolute under the Second Amendment.

One sign of how much the NRA had changed: The Second Amendment right to bear arms never came up in the 166 pages of congressional testimony regarding the 1934 gun law. Today, the organization treats those words as its mantra, constantly citing them.

And until the mid-1970s, the NRA supported waiting periods for handgun purchases. Since then, however, it has opposed them. It fought vehemently against the ultimately successful enactment of a five-business-day waiting period and background checks for handgun purchases in 1993.

NRA influence hit a zenith during George W. Bush’s gun-friendly presidency, which embraced the group’s positions. Among other things, his administration let the assault-weapon ban expire."

The NRA's journey from marksmanship to political brinkmanship

The group, founded in 1871, didn’t try to smother virtually all gun control efforts until the mid-1970s.

theconversation.com

 

[samiam5211]

No one is after hunters. You don't need an AR15 to hunt.

Hunters don't need weapons that hold more than a few rounds at most.

Really if you are hunting and shoot more than twice, it means you missed.

 

[zztop]

hey everyone, we had it wrong all this time. Apparently all we need is love

 

[Semper]

No one is after hunters. You don't need an AR15 to hunt.

But where is the cut off for insurance etc? Just AR style firearms?

 

[Semper]

Hunters don't need weapons that hold more than a few rounds at most.

Really if you are hunting and shoot more than twice, it means you missed.

I am referring to insurance licensing etc.

 

[DaveXA]

No one is after hunters. You don't need an AR15 to hunt.

No, but those hunters are certainly affected. The guns they need for hunting are costing much more, certainly the ammo as well. And many hunters resent the idiots with guns out there. And they're deeply impacted by the loss of life as many have kids the same ages as the ones lost in school shootings.

So, maybe no one, or relatively few are after hunters, but they're definitely impacted.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

hey everyone, we had it wrong all this time. Apparently all we need is love

Gutless MFer.

 

[Semper]

Hunters don't need weapons that hold more than a few rounds at most.

Really if you are hunting and shoot more than twice, it means you missed.

And for the record snow goose have a special rule if you will. They hunt snow geese with shotguns that hold 16 rounds. And there are so many geese coming in that people are sultill reloading and shooting.

 

[Lapaz]

Hunters don't need weapons that hold more than a few rounds at most.

Really if you are hunting and shoot more than twice, it means you missed.

Ha! I don't hunt, but I bet a machine gun improves the odds of hitting your prey! You'd have to make sure you don't eat bullets later!

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

No, but those hunters are certainly affected. The guns they need for hunting are costing much more, certainly the ammo as well. And many hunters resent the idiots with guns out there. And they're deeply impacted by the loss of life as many have kids the same ages as the ones lost in school shootings.

So, maybe no one, or relatively few are after hunters, but they're definitely impacted.

Ah, we're all impacted. I don't know what your point is? This has nothing to do with hunters.

 

[Semper]

hey everyone, we had it wrong all this time. Apparently all we need is love

Did you watch the video? I agree with what he said. Let’s take care of family. Decisions about change should be well thought out and not emotional. That’s how you end up with dumb laws that are not enforceable. He said he was happy to hav e that debate and discussion but not today. I agree with that stance.

 

[DaveXA]

Ah, we're all impacted. I don't know what your point is? This has nothing to do with hunters.

You stated no one is going after hunters. I'm essentially agreeing and adding a bit of a caveat that while they're not targeted, they're impacted by what the idiots with guns are doing. The hunters I personally know favor background checks and sensible gun legislation.

 

[CrowFlies]

this kind of violence happens Here cuz the pop is oer 325,000,000 pie holes.
it doesnt happen other places cuz theyre not so full of humans told they can
have whatever their lil hearts desire.

this is a merican problem. not india not china. not other big econ countries.
it happens here....where number of guns and number of people are about the same.
...which is insane. but hey, its what we are known for nowadaze.
this is just the legal weapons.
https://americangunfacts.com › gun-ownership-statistics

How Many Guns are in the US? (Gun Ownership Statistics)​

There are estimated to be over 400 million guns in the United States between police, the military, and American civilians. Over 393 Million (Over 98%) of those guns are in civilian hands, the equivalent of 120 firearms per 100 citizens. The average gun owning American has 5 firearms, while nearly 22% of gun owners only have a single firearm.