Gun Issues page 40

2293 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by axlkoegoskyeg:


I have to strongly agree with you when it comes to the drugs, however. I support the right of anyone to do as it pleases with its own body, but the problem with drugs, is the level they can take someone. I live in Brazil, and I can tell you the following: One is simply no longer the same person when in drugs. Depending of the level of the addiction, one is capaeble of killing for another dose, and completely loses the sense of reasonable…

I don’t think he’s talking about illegal drugs (which should remain illegal—that’s a no brainer). I think he was talking about prescription drugs, such as anti-depressants. So how do you feel about those? Do you think the legally monitored use of prescription drugs is driving shootings?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:
Originally posted by XtremeHairball:

It seems to me that it’s perfectly reasonable to require a little bit of background on someone before you give them permission to carry lethal force around wherever they go. What makes less sense is forbidding gun ownership in an area, be it a city, a state, or a local laundromat. The worst shootings we’ve had have been at universities, high schools, and now, sadly, elementary schools. Most (if not all) of these locations were designated “gun free” zones, so nobody outside of law enforcement could legally have any kind of firearm on the premises. If teachers (or in the case of Universities, even the students) had been able to carry arms on the premises, it’s reasonable to say that at least some of the shooting may not have happened at all. It’s a huge deterrent to know that, as soon as you start shooting, some 2+ people could be shooting back at you within a matter of seconds. Even if that dosn’t deter them, it would certainly put a stop to the violence much sooner, provided one of the gun-wielding individuals is in a neighboring room. If some 25% of law-abiding adults were carrying guns, criminals would know that 1 in every 4 people around him could end his life right then and there. That thought in itself would be plenty enough incentive for the more rational ones to reconsider. And the ones too insane to care about this would be subdued very quickly. Yes, it may be tragic for an innocent person to have to end a person’s life, but I’m betting that 98% of you would rather the gun-toting maniac be the one to go down rather than a nurse or a school teacher.

and what if that gun owner panicks?
Life is not like movies, even 60% of real life soldiers never fired on their enemy in wwii

I know. I’ve definitely realized that not everyone is going to be able to handle the stress in that situation. If they panic and don’t fire, then nothing happens. But that’s what would happen anyways if they had no gun at all. Not to seem rude, but I’m not exactly sure what your point is.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

and what if that gun owner panicks?
Life is not like movies, even 60% of real life soldiers never fired on their enemy in wwii

I’m not gonna wade through that entire link to find your reference in order to ascertain just what kind of “soldier” ya’re talkining about.
I highly doubt if 60% of grunts, boots-on-THE-ground soldiers didn’t fire their weapon. “Soldiers” back at headquarters slinging hash don’t count.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

and what if that gun owner panicks?
Life is not like movies, even 60% of real life soldiers never fired on their enemy in wwii

I’m not gonna wade through that entire link to find your reference in order to ascertain just what kind of “soldier” ya’re talkining about.
I highly doubt if 60% of grunts, boots-on-THE-ground soldiers didn’t fire their weapon. “Soldiers” back at headquarters slinging hash don’t count.

You lazy …………..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#Late_1950s.E2.80.931960s:_Lighter_rifles_and_smaller_bullets
 
Flag Post

JHCO,

The criminal ignores them. Glados is right, the honest citizen would more than likely turn in their guns, not all of them, just some. Still, they would be afraid to use them for threat of prosecution. We can look at the UK to see this.

Just to round out your point the Canadian Registration debacle had a massive number of people not participate in registering their firearms. I think for three very different, but ultimately equally important reasons. One, the deadline was a bit spontaneous – registering after the fact was a liability. Registration also cost money, as I recall a fair bit. Some did not want to participate in a Federal Firearm Registry. As the debacle progressed numerous “grace” periods were extended where previous failure to register was overlooked and initial costs were waived. These were fairly successful, but overall the program was criticized as nonsense and expensive. Now, do clarify this a little. You posted an NRA video that made it seem like sweeping fascist arm seizure. It wasn’t. It was a poorly planned, bureaucratic tangle likely born of a mixture of good intentions and cash grab. It mostly collapsed under it’s own weight, and like all great Canadian scandals had no real impact.

People have lived and become adults for a hundred years with lead paint in their house. all of a sudden it has become so hazardous we have to treat it like it’s radiation. Irrational behavior like this has become rampant.

I am not sure that was the strongest example. Slathering domestic units in developmental stunting heavy metals seems like a pretty bad call. Rome flourished for a good long while, but lining their aqueducts in lead probably didn’t do them any good either.

She said these drugs, which are depressives, are causing irrational behavior in our young people.

Depressives? Either we’re thinking different drugs or she is I’d say quite wrong. SSRI’s (most anti-depressents) are virtually stimulants. They increase the available reserve of neurochemicals (serotonin), increasing the level of serotonin dependent reactions (mostly everything). While ADD prescriptions are directly proper stimulants.

If I can find material on these drugs, why can’t our government? Why do they ignore this possible cause and instead go after a right? Sounds a bit like politics to me.

Big Pharma wields a tremendous amount of money and political clout. The relation between private industry and public governance is a bit of a boogeyman for me I admit. But consider that your government reps are heavily invested in a multi billion dollar industry that will be making them and their children ultra wealthy forever. Why would they shit on that?

Issendorf
bq. Because we’re violent – it isn’t that complicated. To think that gun control measures that have been tried (and subsequently failed) on smaller scale measures will suddenly and magically work at a national level is a joke. The problem America’s left has is they believe that guns are the root cause of our issues. They aren’t. The violence of mainstream American culture is – and that isn’t going to change with a few executive orders from Obama or with a new gun control measure from Washington.

Absolutely. I found an interesting addendum to that in this data set. Interesting to consider how much the crime rate varies in Federally unified areas, and States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

Twilight,

I don’t think he’s talking about illegal drugs (which should remain illegal—that’s a no brainer). I think he was talking about prescription drugs, such as anti-depressants. So how do you feel about those? Do you think the legally monitored use of prescription drugs is driving shootings?

For the record, not everyone agrees about illegal drugs. Personally I think the mass use of violence increasing drugs is certainly having some impact upon the violence rate. Quite likely particularly in the young’ish “mass shooting” category in which they have the strongest representation. That said, the whole ‘gun violence’ problem is a much wider one. One I feel the prime culprit of which is societal malaise. Spent too long digging to find the exact word I was thinking of and remembered, Durkheim’s Anomie. Which I see as driving the US’s violence, violent breakdowns, and drug prescription rates.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

JHCO,

The criminal ignores them. Glados is right, the honest citizen would more than likely turn in their guns, not all of them, just some. Still, they would be afraid to use them for threat of prosecution. We can look at the UK to see this.

Just to round out your point the Canadian Registration debacle had a massive number of people not participate in registering their firearms. I think for three very different, but ultimately equally important reasons. One, the deadline was a bit spontaneous – registering after the fact was a liability. Registration also cost money, as I recall a fair bit. Some did not want to participate in a Federal Firearm Registry. As the debacle progressed numerous “grace” periods were extended where previous failure to register was overlooked and initial costs were waived. These were fairly successful, but overall the program was criticized as nonsense and expensive. Now, do clarify this a little. You posted an NRA video that made it seem like sweeping fascist arm seizure. It wasn’t. It was a poorly planned, bureaucratic tangle likely born of a mixture of good intentions and cash grab. It mostly collapsed under it’s own weight, and like all great Canadian scandals had no real impact.

People have lived and become adults for a hundred years with lead paint in their house. all of a sudden it has become so hazardous we have to treat it like it’s radiation. Irrational behavior like this has become rampant.

I am not sure that was the strongest example. Slathering domestic units in developmental stunting heavy metals seems like a pretty bad call. Rome flourished for a good long while, but lining their aqueducts in lead probably didn’t do them any good either.

She said these drugs, which are depressives, are causing irrational behavior in our young people.

Depressives? Either we’re thinking different drugs or she is I’d say quite wrong. SSRI’s (most anti-depressents) are virtually stimulants. They increase the available reserve of neurochemicals (serotonin), increasing the level of serotonin dependent reactions (mostly everything). While ADD prescriptions are directly proper stimulants.

If I can find material on these drugs, why can’t our government? Why do they ignore this possible cause and instead go after a right? Sounds a bit like politics to me.

Big Pharma wields a tremendous amount of money and political clout. The relation between private industry and public governance is a bit of a boogeyman for me I admit. But consider that your government reps are heavily invested in a multi billion dollar industry that will be making them and their children ultra wealthy forever. Why would they shit on that?

For the record, not everyone agrees about illegal drugs. Personally I think the mass use of violence increasing drugs is certainly having some impact upon the violence rate. Quite likely particularly in the young’ish “mass shooting” category in which they have the strongest representation. That said, the whole ‘gun violence’ problem is a much wider one. One I feel the prime culprit of which is societal malaise. Spent too long digging to find the exact word I was thinking of and remembered, Durkheim’s Anomie. Which I see as driving the US’s violence, violent breakdowns, and drug prescription rates.

I have heard some thing about Canada’s registration debacle. I felt sorry for you people, especially since there is still a big, wild part of your country were firearms are necessary for survival. Has that all be done away with yet?

I had the windows in my rental and the first thing they did was test for lead. They didn’t find any, but the contractor said if they did I could triple the cost of installing the windows. I don’t think we had a lot of stunting of our children, only a few instances. Of course this become a national emergency, so to speak.

Yes, depressives was the wrong terminology. I don’t know what I was thinking. In fact, I’m not sure what to call them tonight, but I have heard of them being stimulants. The discussion surrounded the drugs used for making children docile in school. Ritalin is one of them. Of course as others have said, any of the drugs taken nowadays causes problems.

Yeah, the drug companies make the NRA look like an amateur. Big money talks and politicians listen.

Interesting link. a couple of those cities surprised me.

 
Flag Post

Perhaps we should give these drugs their own topic?

 
Flag Post

Perhaps, but it seems they are related to the recent shootings.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Perhaps, but it seems they are related to the recent shootings.

Do you really think there’s a connection though? Illegal and volatile drugs such as meth, I would believe, but prescription drugs responsible for shootings? Just seems like a stretch.

 
Flag Post

Yes, I do. the more I read about it the more I see a strong connection. All of these shooters were on one of these drugs. The side effects are well known. Again, these are young adults, not older adults.

http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/is-there-a-link-between-psychiatric-medication-and-mass-shootings

Not the best link, but it does make the connection. the following is a better link.

http://www.ladailypost.com/content/brief-history-psychotropic-drugs-prescribed-mass-murderers

Excerpt:

It should be noted that most of the users of psychotropic drugs do not have the potential to be mass murderers; yet all of the mass murderers listed here had been prescribed one or more psychotropic drug. However, the number of people who could potentially experience one or more adverse side effects was shocking!

 
Flag Post

3 Hours ago from time posted
Copied from ABC News http://news.yahoo.com/teen-planned-attack-walmart-killing-family-154951568—abc-news-topstories.html

The New Mexico teenager who used an assault rifle to kill his mother, father and younger siblings told police he hoped to shoot up a Walmart after the family rampage and cause “mass destruction.”

Police said they are also considering charging the shooter’s 12-year-old girlfriend.

According to new information released by police today, Nehemiah Griego, the 15-year-old son of an Albuquerque pastor, had plans to kill his family, his girlfriend’s family, and local Walmart shoppers for weeks before he acted on the impulse on Sunday.

“Nehemiah said after killing five of his family members he reloaded the weapons so that he could drive to a populated area to murder more people,” a police report from the incident stated.

“Nehemiah stated he wanted to shoot people at random and eventually be killed while exchanging gunfire with law enforcement,” the report said.

The shooting spree began shortly around 1 a.m. on Sunday, when Griego snuck into his parents’ bedroom while his mother, Sara Griego, was asleep. There he raided the closet where the family kept their guns, and immediately used a .22 rifle to kill her, according to the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Department.

Griego’s 9-year-old brother was sleeping with his mother at the time and woke up. When Griego told the boy his mother was dead, the youngster didn’t believe him, according to a police report.

“So Nehemiah picked up his mother’s head to show his brother her bloody face,” the report states. “Nehemiah stated his brother became so upset so he shot his brother in the head.”

He then went into his sisters’ bedroom. “Nehemiah stated when he entered he noticed that his sisters were crying and he shot them in the head,” the police report states. The girls were 5 and 2 years old.

The teenager waited for his father to come from his overnight shift working at a nearby rescue mission. When his father, Greg Griego, walked into the home around 5 a.m., unaware of what had taken place, Griego shot him multiple times with the AR-15 rifle, Sheriff Dan Houston said today.

Greg Griego was a former church pastor at Calvary Church in Albuquerque, and worked as a chaplain at a local jail where he counseled convicts. The family was very involved in the church, according to its website.

The complaint said Griego took a photo of his dead mother and “sent it to his girlfriend.”

Griego then packed up the guns, including two shotguns, as well as ammunition for the rifles, and planned to drive to a Walmart to shoot additional people.

Houston said today that Griego called his 12-year-old girlfriend Sunday and ended up spending the entire day with her rather than going to the Walmart. Around 8 p.m. on Sunday, the pair drove to Calvary Church, and Griego said his family had died in a car crash. Someone on the church’s staff then called 911, Houston said.

“At this time, Nehemiah had been contemplating this for some time. The information that Nehemiah had contemplated going to the local Walmart and participating in a shooting in there is accurate,” Houston said. “There is no information at all that he went to church to cause anyone bodily harm there. The suspect also contemplated killing his girlfriend’s parents.”

The girlfriend’s name was not released, but police are investigating whether to press any charges against her, Houston said. Houston said she had some knowledge about the deaths during the day Sunday.

Griego told cops he sent a picture of his dead mother to his girlfriend after the murder.

Sheriff’s deputies were dispatched to the Griego home around 9:15 p.m. on Sunday and arrived 10 minutes later, where they found the five bodies.

Griego lied to investigators about the attack, telling them he came home around 5 a.m. that morning and found his family dead. He said he then took the guns to protect himself.

Griego quickly admitted to the crime when pressed by police, telling investigators he was “frustrated” with his mother. Deputies said he was “unemotional” and “very stern” during the confession.
-
Problems like these are just disgusting. I think gun restrictions should take place. Really, why do you need Automatics in your house? A simple pistol is all that’s needed, or a rifle if you hunt. You honestly don’t need more than that.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MidnightWerewolf:

3 Hours ago from time posted
Copied from ABC News http://news.yahoo.com/teen-planned-attack-walmart-killing-family-154951568—abc-news-topstories.html

The New Mexico teenager who used an assault rifle to kill his mother, father and younger siblings told police he hoped to shoot up a Walmart after the family rampage and cause “mass destruction.”

Oh yeah, I think I heard about this on the radio after finishing my shooting session.

Oh God, I’m starting to sound just like Jhco.

Griego quickly admitted to the crime when pressed by police, telling investigators he was “frustrated” with his mother. Deputies said he was “unemotional” and “very stern” during the confession.

Well that’s surpisingly easy to draw conclusions from; he’s a sociopath. And, no, I’m not trying to label it as a knee-jerk reaction, but because if the deputies are accurate in his behavior at the time, it’s pretty clear signs of a sociopath.

Okay, I could be misslabeling it and there’s something more specific, but I doubt that I’m entirely incorrect.

 
Flag Post

Blame the media.

 
Flag Post

Shootout? at the NOT-SO Okay collage in Texas.
Yeah, let’s have LOTS & LOTS & LOTS of guns on campuses…lol
Of course not….just saying. 0¿~

THEN, at a local high school…one that has a ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY regarding guns, this dummy for some reasons needs to have a gun at school. Show & Tell day?

 
Flag Post

And what did those two schools have in common Karma? No firearms zone, yet there they were. Two nuts with guns at a school that they new had no firearms. I wonder why that is……………………………oh yeah, no one to return fire.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

And what did those two schools have in common Karma? No firearms zone, yet there they were. Two nuts with guns at a school that they new had no firearms. I wonder why that is……………………………oh yeah, no one to return fire.

Okay, am I missing somthing, because the second article never mentioned anything about a shooting or people wanting to shoot in the school, just a kid who did bring a gun and got punished because of school policy.

 
Flag Post

My mistake. These school shootings are getting a lot of text and I believe it is because these murderers know they will not have any interference. I must be getting jumpy. :)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

My mistake. These school shootings are getting a lot of text and I believe it is because these murderers know they will not have any interference. I must be getting jumpy. :)

Jake, your position is like a fireman who tries to fight fire with fire now firemen do succeed in doing so thanks to intensive training and checks and balances, but same can’t be said about guns.
(I hope this makes sense in english)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
Now, am I saiyng there would be no crime if there were no guns? No, but there would be LESS crime if there were no guns

If that were the case then:

A) Why does Chicago, a city with arguably the strictest gun control policies in the country, have a massive, massive gun violence problem?

Most importantly because there are no controlled boarders between Chicago and the Rest of the country and Chicago excels at having major social and economical problems that make Crime skyrocket.

B) Why have gun violence fallen over the past decade+ while gun ownership rates have skyrocketed?

1. Because gun ownership rates have not skyrocketed. The amount of guns owned has increased while the amount of owners has stayed quite stable.
2. Crime in general has fallen over the past decade+.

Besides, under regular circunstances, a killer wont hesitate to pull the trigger, but a regular person would. And that can make a huge difference

A killer would also be less likely to pull a gun out if he presumed the regular person also carried – hence why gun free zones are a joke.

Those Killers that choose gun free zones as the site of their crimes are generally looking to die, the site is only chosen to give them a bit more time, before the inevitable happens (those with too much time often commit suicide or even turn themselves in).

But, in the wrong hands, a gun DO represents a great danger. So does a car, thus why we can take away ones driver license

Correct me if I’m wrong, but convicted felons can’t legally obtain a firearm. Sure, they can still get one illegally, but people with rescinded licenses can also drive illegally. Hell, illegals drive and they have never had a license period.

You don´t need a licenses to buy or own a Car. I would also like to point out that some illegals actually do have driver licenses. Many foreign driver licenses are recognized by the USA and in some states illegals might have US driver licenses obtained during a legal visit/stay in the US.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Jake, your position is like a fireman who tries to fight fire with fire now firemen do succeed in doing so thanks to intensive training and checks and balances, but same can’t be said about guns.

You’re not making a very good point with this example, punisher.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Jake, your position is like a fireman who tries to fight fire with fire now firemen do succeed in doing so thanks to intensive training and checks and balances, but same can’t be said about guns.

You’re not making a very good point with this example, punisher.

BLOODY HELL….he isn’t even making SENSE.
Even w/ the NEEDED punctuation (? ? ?), it wouldn’t be much of ANY KIND of analogy.

i.e. Jake, your position is like a fireman who tries to fight fire with fire. Firemen do succeed in doing so, thanks to intensive training and checks & balances. But, the same can’t be said about guns.

Does t-pun mean: “fight guns w/ guns”…but it be ONLY w/ “gun men” who have had intensive training and checks & balances? Why do men w/ guns also need a bank checking account? 0¿~

 
Flag Post
Most importantly because there are no controlled boarders between Chicago and the Rest of the country and Chicago excels at having major social and economical problems that make Crime skyrocket.

Gun control limits gun violence is what I’ve been told. I look at Chicago and see that it has failed overwhelmingly. Gangs still have mountains of guns there. Civilians don’t. There are other cities that have massive social and economical problems in this country without near the violence.

1. Because gun ownership rates have not skyrocketed. The amount of guns owned has increased while the amount of owners has stayed quite stable.
2. Crime in general has fallen over the past decade+.

But more guns = more violence as I have consistently been preached to. You aren’t rebutting my points, just more or less restating them.

Those Killers that choose gun free zones as the site of their crimes are generally looking to die, the site is only chosen to give them a bit more time, before the inevitable happens (those with too much time often commit suicide or even turn themselves in).

I agree they are looking to die, but they choose gun free zones because they can slaughter as many as possible before they are either gunned down or commit suicide. This way, because of the mass slaughter, they are guaranteed to become infamous via a 24-hour news cycle.

You don´t need a licenses to buy or own a Car. I would also like to point out that some illegals actually do have driver licenses.

And you don’t need a license to get a gun!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
Most importantly because there are no controlled boarders between Chicago and the Rest of the country and Chicago excels at having major social and economical problems that make Crime skyrocket.

Gun control limits gun violence is what I’ve been told. I look at Chicago and see that it has failed overwhelmingly. Gangs still have mountains of guns there. Civilians don’t. There are other cities that have massive social and economical problems in this country without near the violence.

1. Because gun ownership rates have not skyrocketed. The amount of guns owned has increased while the amount of owners has stayed quite stable.
2. Crime in general has fallen over the past decade+.

But more guns = more violence as I have consistently been preached to. You aren’t rebutting my points, just more or less restating them.

Those Killers that choose gun free zones as the site of their crimes are generally looking to die, the site is only chosen to give them a bit more time, before the inevitable happens (those with too much time often commit suicide or even turn themselves in).

I agree they are looking to die, but they choose gun free zones because they can slaughter as many as possible before they are either gunned down or commit suicide. This way, because of the mass slaughter, they are guaranteed to become infamous via a 24-hour news cycle.

You don´t need a licenses to buy or own a Car. I would also like to point out that some illegals actually do have driver licenses.

And you don’t need a license to get a gun!

Add the word UNIVERSAL before ‘gun control limits violence’ and it’s a more reasonable statement… not flawless, we know, but while it’s really easy for the criminals in chicago to get a gun from outside the city, city wide controls are easily flouted / ignored (including by the otherwise ‘law abiding’ citizen).

More guns might not increase the incidence of violence, then again it might, stats clearly show a correlation between the two (so maybe some definitive research can be done to show one way or the other vis a vis causation following the EO freeing up the CDC to once again research the matter) – they do, however, increase the severity of the violence inflicted… e.g. A ‘nut’ gets his hands on a gun and can easily kill dozens of people in minutes… if the same ‘nut’ can only get his hands on, say, a knife he might manage to kill a person or two before being overpowered.

Don’t need a license to get a gun… maybe it should be a pre-requisite… again, won’t affect those obtaining an illegal gun, but would stop some ‘unsuitable’ people from getting a gun legally.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

My mistake. These school shootings are getting a lot of text and I believe it is because these murderers know they will not have any interference. I must be getting jumpy. :)

YES!
And, it just that kind of “jumpiness” that concerns me about some ppl who own//carry guns.
Failing to NOT “jump” to erroneous conclusions about situations, which is aided by “knee-jerk” paranoia about how their guns are going to be taken away from them and because an INCH is going to go slippery-slope sliding…..all of that is of great concern to me.

This is what those who seek SOMETHING//ANYTHING to quell this kind of mentality among the “pro-gun” groups. Yes, of fucking course, there are a huge majority of RESPONSIBLE gun owners. THEY AREN’T THE PROBLEM. How hard is it to understand something so simple as that?

jhco, that second link (about the kid that ONLY HAD a gun at school) had ONLY 88 words.
How in hell could ya NOT understand it? What in it made ya “jump”? Ya can’t blame MY writing “skills” this time. Other times, YOUR reading ability has been questioned by XXXX poster.

I’m going to give an analogy about how gun ownership relates to companion pert ownership.
Yes, in urban setting (and a whooooole lot of pets are in incorporated towns/cities), THE PET has to be licensed. However, a lot of pets aren’t. But, the owner of the pet need not establish/demonstrate ANY KIND WHATSOEVER of ability to decently care for their pets.

I can’t (don’t wanna) tell ya of the number of rescues I’m be involved in and the utterly sickening things we’ve had to deal with. This includes simple abuse to the “family pet”, the old woman who has 37 cats (house smells horrible…piss soaked carpets), right on up to the most inhumane, psychopathic treatment to an animal ya can imagine. While I do “carry” when going to these “puppy mills” (some of the owners are downright violently NUTS), I have to get really psyched before going or I just might “pull” on the asshole….such is how the pets (mostly dogs…sometimes horses) are so painfully treated. A lot of the animals are so diseased, malnourished, emotionally unfit for adoption that they have to be put down upon arrival at the shelter. Again, I repeat…there is NO lisencing for simple owns OR breeders.

NOW, just what is wrong w/ trying to separate the wheat from the chaff by have SOME FORM OF gun licensing? I would think RESPONSIBLE gun owners would welcome this as it would eliminate those who give gun ownership a bad name. THIS is my position on the matter.

But then, I’m not a delusional, paranoia inflamed zealot who bullshits them self that the 2nd amendment is necessary to “protect ourselves from a tyrannical govt.” Hunting is good and is absolutely going to stick around. Plinking at targets just to see if ya can make a little ball of lead go where ya want it to….ya know like playing darts in a pub, or making a little white ball go in a hole in the middle of some very expensively manicured grass. Having a gun for self-defense is gonna be a very, VERY hard one to “shoot down” in Congress. In case ya didn’t know….DEMOCRATES like their guns, too.

If the “pro-gunners” would ratchet down the absurd, fear-mongering rhetoric a few notched and work rationally w/ the groups on the “other side” of the issue who are (almost…even more than) also damned shit-4-brains on the issue……then maybe, just maybe, this open-gash wound on our society can heal and we can move on to issues that REALLY DO NEED addressed.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by donseptico:

Add the word UNIVERSAL before ‘gun control limits violence’ and it’s a more reasonable statement… not flawless, we know, but while it’s really easy for the criminals in chicago to get a gun from outside the city, city wide controls are easily flouted / ignored (including by the otherwise ‘law abiding’ citizen).

I see where you are going with this. You want, more or less, one set of gun control laws worldwide, such as those proposed by the United Nations. Pray tell why we need such a set of laws governing every country as one?