Gun control debate (merged)

[luthervol]

So have we.

Undoubtedly. It always leads nowhere.
Most people think gun nuts are insane. (because they present themselves as being insane)
Gun nuts think they are great Americans protecting rights from being eroded by the enemy.
Round and round we go.

 

[LouderVol]

That's simply absurd. No one is ignoring the "base problem". Reasonable people want to address all problems.
It's the gun nuts that so transparently want to hide the gun component of the problem behind "the base problem."

AR-15s were available to the public in 1959. the scary ARs aren't the problem, the timelines are WAY off. this is why you can't claim to be rational or reasonable. Other semi automatic rifles were available even before then. heck automatics were available before then.

the reason you think we are "hiding" the gun part of the problem is that they are a symptom, not the problem. And you Web-MD types have assumed that symptom means the problem is gun cancer, and simply removing the guns will solve the cancer. And every time you try and treat the gun cancer the real problem just keeps getting worse. And instead of admitting its not gun cancer you double down, trying to force chemo therapy on a society that has the flu. And you don't realize that your chemo therapy treatments are turning the flu you refuse to diagnose into potentially lethal pneumonia, because you have killed off the ability to address the real problem. Yeah eventually the chemo therapy may kill off the pneumonia, but the collateral damage if far too heavy of price to pay when there are better, more direct, and safer, solutions.

the real problem is the people. and refusing to admit that we have a people problem first and foremost, and any solution that doesn't address the people isn't fixing the problem. All you are doing is driving the conversation away from those responsible and any real solution. Instead of saying yes these specific people are the problem, here is how we address the people, you say "No, the people aren't the problem. You can't identify these people as a potential problem because of X bigotry, and now you can't identify these people as a potential problem because of Y bigotry." And even when it comes to treating the specific cases where individuals are the problem, you say, no you can't use this treatment or that treatment because its too harsh, its targets X people Y too many times, or unfairly. but you have no problem forcing healthy people get chemo therapy with all these sweeping regulations that will turn MILLIONS of law abiding civilians in to criminals overnight, with no recourse. When in reality we want to address the specific instances, and aren't allowed to. that's this flu problem turning into pneumonia.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Undoubtedly. It always leads nowhere.
Most people think gun nuts are insane. (because they present themselves as being insane)
Gun nuts think they are great Americans protecting rights from being eroded by the enemy.
Round and round we go.

Blah, blah, blah.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

https://www.cbs17.com/news/north-ca...istol-permits-first-veto-override-since-2018/

Shockingly, the anti-gun cabal argues in favor of maintaining the decades-old, overtly racist law requiring a permit to purchase a handgun:

Elizabeth Hone, a member of the anti-gun violence group Moms Demand Action, was in the gallery of the General Assembly during the Wednesday morning vote.
“We really need to start doing more to protect our families. This would’ve been one step in that direction,” she said.

 

[luthervol]

Blah, blah, blah.

Exactly.

 

[luthervol]

AR-15s were available to the public in 1959. the scary ARs aren't the problem, the timelines are WAY off. this is why you can't claim to be rational or reasonable. Other semi automatic rifles were available even before then. heck automatics were available before then.

the reason you think we are "hiding" the gun part of the problem is that they are a symptom, not the problem. And you Web-MD types have assumed that symptom means the problem is gun cancer, and simply removing the guns will solve the cancer. And every time you try and treat the gun cancer the real problem just keeps getting worse. And instead of admitting its not gun cancer you double down, trying to force chemo therapy on a society that has the flu. And you don't realize that your chemo therapy treatments are turning the flu you refuse to diagnose into potentially lethal pneumonia, because you have killed off the ability to address the real problem. Yeah eventually the chemo therapy may kill off the pneumonia, but the collateral damage if far too heavy of price to pay when there are better, more direct, and safer, solutions.

the real problem is the people. and refusing to admit that we have a people problem first and foremost, and any solution that doesn't address the people isn't fixing the problem. All you are doing is driving the conversation away from those responsible and any real solution. Instead of saying yes these specific people are the problem, here is how we address the people, you say "No, the people aren't the problem. You can't identify these people as a potential problem because of X bigotry, and now you can't identify these people as a potential problem because of Y bigotry." And even when it comes to treating the specific cases where individuals are the problem, you say, no you can't use this treatment or that treatment because its too harsh, its targets X people Y too many times, or unfairly. but you have no problem forcing healthy people get chemo therapy with all these sweeping regulations that will turn MILLIONS of law abiding civilians in to criminals overnight, with no recourse. When in reality we want to address the specific instances, and aren't allowed to. that's this flu problem turning into pneumonia.

I have never heard a single person deny that there is a people problem.

EVERYBODY KNOWS AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT!!!!!!!!!!

There is also a gun problem.

ALMOST EVERYBODY KNOWS AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT!!!!!!!!!! (except for the gun nuts)

 

[LouderVol]

Those generalizations do not apply to me. I've offered numerous reasonable changes -
The Jon Stewart clip is perfect in its summation. He is saying exactly what tens of millions (and growing) of Americans are rightfully thinking.
The gun nuts have contributed far more to the growing demonization of guns than any other one thing.

like what?
only 5 purchases a year? wouldn't have stopped any attack, just an infringement.
Universal background checks? oops we already have that, hasn't stopped these attacks.
An even longer delay on back ground checks so that a person has to wait longer? Literally just changes the date of the attack, just an infringement.
X over Y counts as an assault weapon, please that's too vague, and wouldn't have stopped any of these attacks. just another infringement
Banning guns in certain places? Please thats like putting up no gun zone signs that have directly lead to an increase in the number of attacks. Infringement and a danger.
taking away guns from dangerous individuals? I would bet the house down payment I am making that that would just lead to more shootings as you are forcing the issue with violent individuals. and allows way to many cases of "swatting" of reaching more individuals. dangerous and an infringement.
Fewer overall guns? we just saw a shooting in Japan where there are no guns at all. your entire argument here is that if we take away legal guns, eventually the illegal guns will be less frequent. the issue is that you are punishing the legal gun owners, and I have no idea what mechanism the government could even use to limit the number of a manufactured product.

I haven't seen anyone on the left propose an expanded back ground check that would include Trans as potential red flag. or phycological drugs

 

[LouderVol]

I have never heard a single person deny that there is a people problem.

EVERYBODY KNOWS AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT!!!!!!!!!!

There is also a gun problem.

ALMOST EVERYBODY KNOWS AND ACKNOWLEDGES THAT!!!!!!!!!! (except for the gun nuts)

the only way its a gun problem is because that's the only thing you look at. that's the only thing your are willing to label a real problem and attempt to resolve.

what about stabbings or beatings at schools? thats violence and death at schools. not a problem you are addressing as aggressively. I know overall in this country there are more stabbings and beatings than shootings, don't know if that ratio holds in school, but seems like that should be just as much of a focus. but there you don't go after knives or bats, just the guns do you go after the tool. thats why I can say you only think its a gun problem.

if you want me, or anyone, to believe that you admit that its a people problem too, you need to start introducing proposals that are at least as stringent on the people as you are with the guns. because I don't think I have seen you once address the people side of the equation in this thread. or any other.

 

[luthervol]

like what?
only 5 purchases a year? wouldn't have stopped any attack, just an infringement.
Universal background checks? oops we already have that, hasn't stopped these attacks.
An even longer delay on back ground checks so that a person has to wait longer? Literally just changes the date of the attack, just an infringement.
X over Y counts as an assault weapon, please that's too vague, and wouldn't have stopped any of these attacks. just another infringement
Banning guns in certain places? Please thats like putting up no gun zone signs that have directly lead to an increase in the number of attacks. Infringement and a danger.
taking away guns from dangerous individuals? I would bet the house down payment I am making that that would just lead to more shootings as you are forcing the issue with violent individuals. and allows way to many cases of "swatting" of reaching more individuals. dangerous and an infringement.
Fewer overall guns? we just saw a shooting in Japan where there are no guns at all. your entire argument here is that if we take away legal guns, eventually the illegal guns will be less frequent. the issue is that you are punishing the legal gun owners, and I have no idea what mechanism the government could even use to limit the number of a manufactured product.

I haven't seen anyone on the left propose an expanded back ground check that would include Trans as potential red flag. or phycological drugs

All of those and more.
It's not so much about stopping these school shootings. The school shootings just turn the spotlight back on.

Everyone knows there is nothing in this world that will stop crazed people intent on murdering innocents form doing so.
Nothing - never has been - never will be.

I do support the concept that a crazed person intent on inflicting as much death and destruction as (easily) possible, has his/her job made easier due to our insane gun culture.

But again, the focus can't be on school shootings, the focus must be on all of the societal negatives made much worse because of our crazed gun culture.

 

[luthervol]

if you want me, or anyone, to believe that you admit that its a people problem too, you need to start introducing proposals that are at least as stringent on the people as you are with the guns. because I don't think I have seen you once address the people side of the equation in this thread. or any other.

Then you haven't been looking very hard.
Just in the last couple of days I have posted mental health stats multiple times.

 

[InVOLuntary]

That's simply absurd. No one is ignoring the "base problem". Reasonable people want to address all problems.
It's the gun nuts that so transparently want to hide the gun component of the problem behind "the base problem."

There's never been one gun that's ever killed anyone other than a gun malfunction. When you get this through your commie skull you might be able to offer a real solution.

 

[luthervol]

There's never been one gun that's ever killed anyone other than a gun malfunction. When you get this through your commie skull you might be able to offer a real solution.

Good god that is the most tiresome. pointless, and mindless argument I have ever heard.

 

[WBO]

He made his point well, but that doesn't mean it is correct. Both of these guys are wrong.

IMO, children being read to by drag queens is a parental decision and the government should have no part in it. Likewise, the government should have no part in infringing my constitutional right to own a firearm. Freedom is what it is and the nonsense is always being shouted by those that want to take some of it away.

Want to ban trans reading to children? Sorry, ain't gonna happen.

Want to ban my right to own a firearm? Sorry, ain't gonna happen.

Your constitutional rights are what the Supreme Court says they are. Right now you have a pro-gun Supreme Court, but that changes with time and eventually you will have a court that actually considers the first phrase in the 2nd Amendment and says that gun restrictions are constitutional. Maybe it swings back again after that, but I am guessing the inexorable progress towards liberalism will win out in the end.

 

[kiddiedoc]

The gun problem?
To many

Ok, start there

We currently have an estimated 400,000,000 guns in the U.S. Over 5 million M1 Garand rifles (much more "deadly" than an AR15) were made for the US military, many of which are now in private possession.

Specifically how do you propose to significantly reduce the number of guns, if we have "too many?"

SPECIFICALLY.

 

[luthervol]

Ok, start there

We currently have an estimated 400,000,000 guns in the U.S. Over 5 million M1 Garand rifles (much more "deadly" than an AR15) were made for the US military, many of which are now in private possession.

Specifically how do you propose to significantly reduce the number of guns, if we have "too many?"

SPECIFICALLY.

I would specifically take steps to move the number of new guns purchased from 18 million a year to 14 million a year.
But then again, I'm of the school of thought that 414,000,000 guns is preferable to 418,000,000.

Sort of like the national debt. A good starting point that most everyone should be able to agree on is....... "let's at least start reversing the trend that is leading us down a path to oblivion."

 

[C-south]

That needs to be aired on a continuous loop.

Teach everyone what a stupid analogy is for sure. It’s also ironic coming from someone who undoubtedly believes in “hate speech” and “safe spaces”.

 

[peaygolf]

 

[luthervol]

An AR in bad hands killed a lot of people,
An AR in good hands......hold on.......ok, never mind.

Maybe it is about the gun, folks.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Good god that is the most tiresome. pointless, and mindless argument I have ever heard.

And you'll continue wander in the wilderness of your clueless little mind. Liberal logic or the lack of said logic is something that should be studied. It baffles me as to how people can be so stupid.

 

[rjd970]

The gun problem?
To many
To easy to purchase legally
To easy to purchase illegally
More lethal than necessary

I asked what you think the problem is. If you think it is guns then this isn't worth discussing anymore. I suspect there are very few that have issues with reasonable measures. Personally, I have no problem with things like background checks and limits or additional checks on suppressors and fully automatic weapons. This is from somebody that owns several firearms and regularly carries.

At the end of the day, whether you think there are too many, too easy to purchase legally/illegally, or what the lethality is...if somebody wants to do something bad with a gun they are going to do it, no matter how they got or how lethal it is. THAT is the problem, not the instrument used.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

This could be 2-3 years old but I think I saw this clip this morning on CNN.

 

[kiddiedoc]

I would specifically take steps to move the number of new guns purchased from 18 million a year to 14 million a year.
But then again, I'm of the school of thought that 414,000,000 guns is preferable to 418,000,000.

Sort of like the national debt. A good starting point that most everyone should be able to agree on is....... "let's at least start reversing the trend that is leading us down a path to oblivion."

Ok, thank you for explaining.

 

[UT_VOLS13]

White House dodges question on whether 'assault weapons' ban will lead to 'confiscation'

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Time for a Democrat meltdown & we want to yell about it..

 

[GroverCleveland]

I would specifically take steps to move the number of new guns purchased from 18 million a year to 14 million a year.
But then again, I'm of the school of thought that 414,000,000 guns is preferable to 418,000,000.

Sort of like the national debt. A good starting point that most everyone should be able to agree on is....... "let's at least start reversing the trend that is leading us down a path to oblivion."

That could probably be accomplished easily enough if Democrats will stop talking about bans and dealing with a rising violent crime problem. People are buying more guns because of fear.