And yet another, seems there is always another......

[AppleDumpling]

.

My gun has never even come close to shooting another person. Nor has anyone I know, their guns come even close to shooting another person. I know people who could arm the entire county from their basement, and still, none of those guns have ever come remotely close to shooting another person.

Just the 3 other people currently in the room with me can arm a small town. None of their guns has ever shot another person. If I went to my office, there is the one guy who could arm the entire county from his basement.

Ok, so why do you own them? Why, pray tell, does one person need to have an arsenal large enough to arm the entire county?

 

[sam_gordon]

I don't think everyone is objecting to an inanimate object. They're objecting to the unregulated access to the inanimate object. A car is an inanimate object -I can't simply buy it(or build it) and put it on the street ...I have to pass a test to operate it, pay to register it, pay to insure it, etc. The problem is lack of control, and most sane people are in favor of better control of any inanimate object that can be potentially dangerous in the wrong hands. I can name dozens of "toys" forced off the market by the government because of their potential danger to children ...same goes for inanimate objects meant for adults. I'm still getting over the taking away of my RED DYE #2!

With all due respect, and I do respect your argument, I'm going to suggest if you want to "encourage a dialogue" among those who disagree with you, to refrain from implying they are "not sane". Now, if you want want to rant and rave, talk AT people instead of WITH them (which I don't think you want to do), carry on.

 

[sam_gordon]

Another thought (and I was trying really hard not to get sucked in)...

A *HUGE* difference (for those focused on gun regulation) between the US and other countries is the 2nd Amendment. Now, we can go around and around on how that should be interpreted, but it doesn't matter what anyone here believes. Until either the Judicial side of our government changes the interpretation OR the legislative side changes the law itself (I'm assuming through a new Amendment, which IMO, would be difficult to pass), nothing will change regarding "gun rights".

Gun regulation proponents accurately point out cars are "regulated". Lots of things are regulated "for the safety" of others. BUT, point to one thing that is "regulated" that is ALSO included in an amendment.

Anti-regulation proponents accurately point out millions of weapons (of many types) are legally and properly owned and have never been used in a crime, much less to harm some one. BUT, there are already limits on what one can own (I don't think it's legal to own a missile launcher, grenade launcher, or flame thrower). So folks ARE OK with SOME limits.

IMO, it makes no sense to keep bringing up banning guns, because it is not going to happen. IT.WILL.NOT.HAPPEN. So, figure out something short of that that would have prevented these shootings. Pick one shooting, and find out what it would have taken (short of banning the weapon) that would have stopped it. Keeping up the mantra "ban guns and we'll have no more shootings" will do nothing but frustrate you because IT.WILL.NOT.HAPPEN.

Yes, that's my opinion.

 

[GAN]

Actually, wrong. You can go out and purchase any car you want. You can even put it on the street, no test to operate it, no money to register it, no need to insure it. You can put a car on the road and drive it without doing any of those things. You just wouldn't be legal.

I however can not go and purchase a gun without being checked.

You must have much deeper issues than the one being discussed here...... It was pretty obvious to almost everyone that's what was meant. So, it is somewhat worrisome that you and your friends have enough ammo to arm a small town. But okay....

 

[GAN]

With all due respect, and I do respect your argument, I'm going to suggest if you want to "encourage a dialogue" among those who disagree with you, to refrain from implying they are "not sane". Now, if you want want to rant and rave, talk AT people instead of WITH them (which I don't think you want to do), carry on.

I was literally refering to people who are "insane," mentally not stable enough to own a gun. But I do see how it reads ..thanks for pointing that out though!

 

[Dan Murphy]

BUT, there are already limits on what one can own (I don't think it's legal to own a missile launcher, grenade launcher, or flame thrower). So folks ARE OK with SOME limits.

IMO, it makes no sense to keep bringing up banning guns, because it is not going to happen.

Hi, Sam.

I think your thoughts here are pretty key. Certain weapons are already banned from ownership by 'everyday people'. Working missile launchers, grenade launchers, flame throwers, operational tanks, bazookas, RPG's, automatic firing machine guns.. etc., etc. I think what the clear majority of the country is simply looking and hoping for is a ban on assault style weapons along with high capacity magazines. Most, a very large majority, are not looking for banning guns in general. Just adding a type to the current banned items, like bazookas, RPG's what have you.

Just my observation, as well as my hope.

 

[sam_gordon]

Hi, Sam.

I think your thoughts here are pretty key. Certain weapons are already banned from ownership by 'everyday people'. Working missile launchers, grenade launchers, flame throwers, operational tanks, bazookas, RPG's, automatic firing machine guns.. etc., etc. I think what the clear majority of the country is simply looking and hoping for is a ban on assault style weapons along with high capacity magazines. Most, a very large majority, are not looking for banning guns in general. Just adding a type to the current banned items, like bazookas, RPG's what have you.

Just my observation, as well as my hope.

I do think some people feel that way and others want a flat out ban.

Now, instead of saying "ban on assault style weapons", define it. What makes something "assault style"? What do you do for those who currently LEGALLY own such a weapon? They have to turn them in? Do they get money for them? Where does that money come from?

Please note, I'm not arguing against such a ban, I'm just trying to get past the emotions (and yes, it's an emotional topic).

 

[GAN]

.


Ok, so why do you own them? Why, pray tell, does one person need to have an arsenal large enough to arm the entire county?

I had a friend from work who did the same because he was worried the government was going to take everything he owned ...he's doing 10-years in a Fed prison right now. I wouldn't brag about those things in a public forum if they were true, that's for sure

 

[mrodgers]

Or look at other countries without mass shootings and see what is different.

That's what I said, look at the differences, plural. Not just look at the object that protects people's lives far more than mass shootings happen. Look at all differences. But we just focus on one thing.

 

[CdnCarrie]

I do think some people feel that way and others want a flat out ban.

Now, instead of saying "ban on assault style weapons", define it. What makes something "assault style"? What do you do for those who currently LEGALLY own such a weapon? They have to turn them in? Do they get money for them? Where does that money come from?

Please note, I'm not arguing against such a ban, I'm just trying to get past the emotions (and yes, it's an emotional topic).

I don't even understand what is emotional about a hunk of metal.

 

[sam_gordon]

That's what I said, look at the differences, plural. Not just look at the object that protects people's lives far more than mass shootings happen. Look at all differences. But we just focus on one thing.

OK, I'll bite. Do you have anything to back up the bolded?

 

[mrodgers]

Oh please. You know I’m Canadian.

Didn't notice that in your name. So no, I don't know you are Canadian. They did away with locations in the member info so I have no way of knowing where you are from. Cdn could be anything...

 

[sam_gordon]

I don't even understand what is emotional about a hunk of metal.

Really? That's how you read that line?

 

[CdnCarrie]

That's what I said, look at the differences, plural. Not just look at the object that protects people's lives far more than mass shootings happen. Look at all differences. But we just focus on one thing.

why isn't this being done. You as a voter in a country with the largest number of mass murders - why are you not pushing for reform? Or if you are how are your pushing for reform?
What changes do you think will need to be done.

Mental health issue is a HUGE issue in many many countries. Very similar to the USA. That is not a difference at all. Neither is bullying, social media, movies or video games.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Really? That's how you read that line?

Yes. maybe you want to clarify as that is how it reads to me.

ETA - I'm guessing there are emotions (for some) around the 2nd Amendment and that is what you are alluding to.

 

[Dan Murphy]

why isn't this being done. You as a voter in a country with the largest number of mass murders - why are you not pushing for reform? Or if you are how are your pushing for reform?

Money, money from such as the NRA, speaks more loudly here than people's desires. It is a sad state of affairs.

 

[CdnCarrie]

Money, money from such as the NRA, speaks more loudly here than people's desires. It is a sad state of affairs.

Very sad. And around and around you go. It is very unfortunate.

 

[TAX GUY]

Money, money from such as the NRA, speaks more loudly here than people's desires. It is a sad state of affairs.

Then wouldn't that mean its all the crooked politicians taking that money and ignoring the people's desires? I mean, based on the recent election results, the majority of voters have views that align with the current administration, so then why haven't things changed?

.


Ok, so why do you own them? Why, pray tell, does one person need to have an arsenal large enough to arm the entire county?

Pretty sure that's their personal choice on why, and not anyone else's business to know. Maybe they're a collector?

 

[persnickity]

Then wouldn't that mean its all the crooked politicians taking that money and ignoring the people's desires? I mean, based on the recent election results, the majority of voters have views that align with the current administration, so then why haven't things changed?

Oh, were you unaware that lobbyists essentially own both parties of our 2 party system?

 

[TAX GUY]

Oh, were you unaware that lobbyists essentially own both parties of our 2 party system?

Say what? So you mean to say that the peoples voices really have no say, unless it fits into the master plan of politicians and lobbyists? Huh.... imagine that