gun control - what are we waiting for ?

[DanteRedfield]

What kind of an idiot doesn't feel safer having a gun

[xrayy]

statistically a weapon in the usa - in private hands - is mainly a safety risk - for the owner and his family and related persons. that is the simple truth.

what kind of idiot thinks that he can feel safer with a weapon if everybody knows and if there is evidence that the opposite is true?

[DanteRedfield]

Maybe you're right and people are retarded sheep who can't even handle a gun

[HeyYou]

your numbers are houshold related. im interested in heads! and there is only one significant group of people who feel safer with weapons and owning them:

white male, around 50-60 years old, conservative or republicans, more in southern or rural areas. all other groups are lesser than 20%.

that are probably the ones who are the "real americans" you claim i insult - right ?

 

i tell you what: the statistics are clear and there would be a way to solve u.s. weapon control problem (we do not need that in europe). just face the truth and study the numbers! but not as long as people like you even publicly close their eyes living and behaving like in another century or on another planet. there is nothing to understand for me because i do not have a problem. all the problems we are talking about are related to innocent dead u.s.citizens who seem to have no lobby. all the innocent people who die day by day and with your and nra support are american people not european people! even a fundamental right can be out of date or a misinterpretation after two centuries. And if it is (in some parts) obviously only good in supporting the killing of still too many innocent people maybe a change to the better would be a good thing. i'm sure you as the special group of (probably) white conservative or republicans will not support this initiative just be able to play freely with their weapon toys while ignoring the known safety risks and the numbers of deadly incidents with weapons who speak for themselves!

mentioning the "car argument" just shows how bad and desperate your arguments are.

I would point out that the democrats are the ones that want to ban guns, so, is it any surprise that most gun owners are republicans? (conservatives) And most republicans are white, so again, I don't see any correlation there.

 

Innocent people die every day. Not just from being shot. There is zero proof that removing the guns would reduce the number of deaths. Would it reduce the number of GUN deaths? Sure, provided you could find a way to get them all. (impossible.) Innocents would still die, just by different methods. And if you want to bring up 'mass shootings', don't bother. Given the number of folks that die here every year, they are statistically non-existent.

 

If mass shootings are what concern you the most, then there is already a solution available, Ban Gun-Free zones. Or maybe you hadn't noticed that most mass-shootings (which doesn't include gang related activity, as EveryTownForGunSafety DOES include in their stats) occur in gun free zones. And why is that? Because the cowards that go on shooting sprees, want to go someplace that they KNOW very few, if anyone at all, will be able to SHOOT BACK!

 

We don't need to run our schools into fortresses, (prisons) we just need to take away that big sign that says "Come here and kill all you want, no one will stop you, till the police show up, and even then, they will take their time about coming in."

 

 

You can discount my arguments. That's fair. I discount most of yours as well. :D

[xrayy]

it is not about banning guns. why so extreme ? it is about reducing guns to the amount which is somehow based on reasonable needs but not for fun or just for collection purposes. this would be a beginning. as long as there is no control over addicted, ill and psychopathic people with weapons they can potentially kill innocent people. that is a fact! even republicans should not close their eyes. and almost everyone of us can act irrational in extreme situations like the truck driver killing the biker after being completely unobtrusive for decades.

 

i hope i discount nobodies arguments if they are somehow reasonable or if the facts are definite. this is not my intention.

 

if people refuse repeatedly to take important facts into consideration i have to respect that but it is difficult to take them serious and it makes a debate somehow obsolete.

 

we are not talking a about a ban. this would be an extreme step. we are talking about control of a deadly instrument! and to the "car argument" - cars are registered and need an insurance. so they are already "controlled" - exactly that is what i would suggest for weapons. control, a license for the owner and an insurance - the same system of control used for cars and truck drivers, not a complete ban.

 

and some facts

[HeyYou]

it is not about banning guns. why so extreme ? it is about reducing guns to the amount which is somehow based on reasonable needs but not for fun or just for collection purposes. this would be a beginning. as long as there is no control over addicted, ill and psychopathic people with weapons they can potentially kill innocent people. that is a fact! even republicans should not close their eyes. and almost everyone of us can act irrational in extreme situations like the truck driver killing the biker after being completely unobtrusive for decades.

 

i hope i discount nobodies arguments if they are somehow reasonable or if the facts are definite. this is not my intention.

 

if people refuse repeatedly to take important facts into consideration i have to respect that but it is difficult to take them serious and it makes a debate somehow obsolete.

 

we are not talking a about a ban. this would be an extreme step. we are talking about control of a deadly instrument! and to the "car argument" - cars are registered and need an insurance. so they are already "controlled" - exactly that is what i would suggest for weapons. control, a license for the owner and an insurance - the same system of control used for cars and truck drivers, not a complete ban.

 

and some facts

It is already illegal to sell firearms to folks with mental issues. Trouble is, that information isn't really available to law enforcement, so, unless someone has been convicted of a crime related to their mental illness, the cops don't know. Therefore, the background check system doesn't know.

 

What is the difference between 'reducing' guns, and banning them? Who determines who can own what? Or how many? Targeting gun collectors is pointless. They collect guns, most of which, they NEVER fire. Attempting to implement a system of this nature would simply add to government bureaucracy, costing the taxpayers even more money, (or, the government spending more money that they don't have...... which they seem excessively good at here....) and you can bet a whole host of organizations would fight such a system tooth and nail, on constitutional grounds. (and win.....)

 

The whole problem here is, Laws only affect the law-abiding. Criminals, by their very definition, are NOT law-abiding, so it really doesn't matter what laws you pass, it simply is not going to reduce gun crime at all. Look at Chicago, Washington DC, Baltimore Maryland, Los Angeles California. All cities with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and also some of the highest rates of gun crime in the nation.......

[xrayy]

What is the difference between 'reducing' guns, and banning them? Who determines who can own what? Or how many? Targeting gun collectors is pointless. 

Is this a serious question or just your search for a good opportunity to place your own - fantasy based - answer?

 

And i also do not get your logic with Chicago, Washington DC, Baltimore Maryland, Los Angeles California.

what do you thinks was first - highest gun crime rate or the law to reduce gun crime ?

maybe a little more study of cause and effect ?

 

and it is not about the risk of people who are already known to be ill and registered but about who are not yet registered in case they get ill or addicted or whatever. if you do not have a public authority with control over a register you can not confiscate the weapons in time from potentially dangerous or ill people.

[HeyYou]

I suppose a more accurate question would be: How do you propose to "reduce" guns? Limit how many folks can own? (yeah, that'll work..... uh huh...) Ban specific types of weapons? (that's definitely a ban) Ban specific classes of weapons?? (yeah, that's a ban too.) How would you even enforce that??? The number of guns, greater than one, folks own is simply irrelevant. After all, all it takes is ONE.

 

Those cities had high crime. They passed laws banning guns. (some banned them altogether, others, just certain types.) Gun crime still increased. Washington DC was the murder capitol of the US for quite some time. The gun bans were declared unconstitutional, and guess what, crime went DOWN. Nothing seems to have any affect in Chicago....... And the 'assault weapons ban'? It had zero effect on gun crime.

 

So, now you want to prevent folks from buying weapons because they MIGHT become ill? Are you any relation to George Orwell?

 

Got news for ya. It is ALREADY ILLEGAL FOR MENTALLY ILL FOLKS TO OWN/POSSESS FIREARMS. That mechanism is ALREADY in place. It just doesn't work....... Privacy laws come into play here. Doctors are legally prevented from passing on that information to relevant agencies.... Today, we have 'Red Flag" laws.... Anyone can call the cops, say "X person is dangerous", and off the cops go to confiscate their weapons. No due process whatsoever. And it is basically impossible to get your weapons back once the cops have 'em. There are legal challenges to those laws working their way thru the courts, even as I type. Remains to be seen if they pass the test of time. Reminds me a lot of the Civil forfeiture laws that many police agencies make big bucks on. You don't have to be convicted of anything at all, or even CHARGED, and the cops can confiscate your property, on the mere suspicion that you acquired them illegally. (directly, or indirectly.....) No due process. And trying to get them back? Good luck with that. Rarely, if ever, happens. Even if you never are charged, or if you actually go to court, and are acquitted, it can be years before you get your property back. If ever.

 

For the longest time, violent crime was on a downward trend. Only recently (last 5-10 years) has it started to increase again. Gun laws haven't gotten any looser..... but, society has certainly changed. Just look at the types of gun crime that are on the rise, to nicely illustrate that........ So, is it a gun problem? Or is it a people problem??

[xrayy]

you tell me things i already know and most americans already know. what does illegal mean if nobody has any control ? effectively nothing - like in the u.s.!

how should effective control of a death bringing instrument work without mandatory registration in advance ? it doesn't work!

so where is your safety ?

 

simply control it like cars - with insurance and license! this is how it works in my country - and it works very effective! no insurance and no license = no weapon and not car. it could be so easy and so safe! what is your problem if you like it safe ?

should be manageable for a civilized country like usa !?

[Wylsacomes]

I could never understand why some states make it legal. It is obvious that there are so many idiots in this world...