I dont think any of us know the answer. So just like a legal or medical issues let the egg heads sort it out. Why not let cdc do a massive study and come up with a solution thats solves 2 things…
A bit more red tape is fine by me if it means not worrying every time I drop kids off at school
I think so too. I have mixed feelings on guns. As a personal choice, I don’t own any. I have previously, and still do a little plinking every few years to maintain proficiency, but have a number of reasons that are good enough for me not to.
I also feel more strongly than ever that gun ownership is not for everybody. My last interaction with someone with a gun sealed the deal on that. As dangerous as it was, it was even more ridiculously stupid on the part of the person (woman) with the gun. (I’d written about that in the things that piss you off thread in the fall.)
My point in introducing that particular event was more to inform than shut down.
Could have also used this one, just off the top of my head-
which, although it does not have a body count, did 400 million dollars in damage to a nuclear submarine. Thats pretty big!
The one common theme in all of these though is a disturbed mental state. Unfortunately, and maybe its just due to the sources there is emphasis on body count, weapons, and maybe as an afterthought throw in that the person was suffering from an un-diagnosed or untreated psychological problem. The one most potent driving force (imho) is treated as an afterthought in all of these.
If I were to propose any type of changes to gun ownership laws, it would have to include an in depth look at the persons psychological state, and if determined to be acceptable, then at some factors that can determine the fragility or resilience of that state (which can change over time) and possibly intermittent updates similar to drivers licence renewal.
Ya… You could buy a Tommy Gun for like a decade and a half without restriction prior to the NFA of 34.
It’s perfectly relevant. You made a claim that the greatest generation wouldn’t have owned “tactical” gear. Well, they couldn’t have owned the gear you cited as it didn’t exist and they owned the “tactical” gear of their time. 1911s, Tommy Guns, etc…
So? You have to storm the Bastille when you feel like your liberties are being torched? That’s nonsense and you know it.
Everything exists in degrees. If Congress makes “Assault Rifles” illegal I’m not going to revolt… Doesn’t mean I don’t feel my rights are being trampled on and I’ll damn sure make it known.
Maybe, assuming your definition of extremist is applied. I don’t think owning a scope or some kevlar makes you an extremist. I personally think it’s a waste of money, but these same folks probably think all the money I spend on golf balls (a lot…) is a waste too.
You know this how?
Cool. So are iPhones, 75" TVs, Porche’s, McMansions, $1,000 suits, so on and so forth.
They might (lol)
Even if that’s true so what?
In your opinion. Some people just like that kind of stuff. Not everything is about politics.
I assume that you also support a person’s legal right to drive, but you also support the restriction of cars that go over 70 mph as they’re just for glorified race car driver types?
How many other things should we restrict for “public safety”?
If you have to worry everytime you drop them off, I would highly recommend enrolling them in a gun-free school.
Great solution…ill look for that along with movie theatres concerts & every place that has humans. Somehow i think dude in Florida didn’t read the sign on door tho
No, you said there was no unfettered access. That is not true, there was nationally, and for the most part locally until problems became blatantly obvious, and then the access was fettered, with the NFA in 1934. Machine guns were not invinted in 1934.
Which was why I brought up the driver’s license story. When cars were invented, people who could afford them just started driving them. There were no regulations, until the problems became obvious, and then the regulations were and still are being written.
If there were national regulations of machine guns before 1934, please share. I’m sure some municipalities regulated them locally. If you happen to know when and where, please share. I’m not trying to win the internet, I’m genuinely curious.
You say “states took the lead when it came to public safety.” Which is true, but you said it like we’re arguing which is strange. I have said repeatedly that they were local issues. And I’ll say it again, I don’t think people in New York lost sleep over what people in Virginia did, and vice versa.
Can’t we just back to the good old days?
Wow, thanks for posting that. It really puts things in perspective (for me anyway).
After seeing this, it makes me think again we are our own worst enemies with the saturation of media that we have now days. There is so much (over)reporting happening, and it can reach us instantly. We now look at things under a microscope daily, and forget about the things you need a telescope to see.
Yep, and then a law was passed to deal with a problem.
I separated tactical gear from firearms in my point about the GG, but in any event, yes, they did own such weaponry, until they passed laws restricting certain ones (Tommy Guns, etc.). As in, the law changed to deal with a new public threat. And that was perfectly acceptable, and the sun wasn’t setting on the Republic by passage of such laws.
I was being metaphorical, not literal.
What practical purpose could they be using it for? Serious question. Unless they are using it for law enforcement or military, what purpose?
Ok? I don’t disagree with that. And that helps my argument more than yours. If any other such frivolous toy started to represent a public danger, it’d be totally fair to weigh restrictions on its ownership.
I know you posted that as humor (and it is), but it reminds me of another issue I have with this crowd. Self-defense is a critical right, but no one should actually be excited at the prospect of killing another human. I support 100% the right to protect your home from invasion with lethal force if necessary (I will), but if such a thing actually came to pass, it would be a scary, tragic, and sorrowful event. Yet how many of the “gun nuts” sound positively excited and hopeful that someone will actually try to invade so they can waste them? Some of them - too many of them - can’t wait for the opportunity. That’s sick.
That’s an issue that is bigger than gun control, but it touches on it. Gun rights activists do themselves no favors by making killing a burglar a manly sporting event that will generate some “Hell yeahs!!!” from their bros on social media.
(Not saying this is you, btw.)
Then admit it’s new and stop trying to pretend it’s connected to our American way of life going back to the signing of the Declaration. Make the case why this new view needs to prevail, that’s fine, but shut down all this dishonest talk that going the other way is “un-American”. Get an honest debate going that doesn’t rely on the ad hominem that the other side is acting in bad faith.
They shove it in everyone’s faces at every turn by (mis)citing the 2A. It’s political because they make it political. Just like vegans.
Are people driving over 70 in an attempt to commit murder? I haven’t seen anything to suggest so. The public safety need is different.
I don’t know - shouldn’t we play that by ear and deal with it as certain public safety issues arise?
Exactly how many more of other peoples children need to be killed before they become significant (statistically speaking of course). What rate is the tipping point? Who decides? Statisticians? Jesus?
I’d ask if having ones own child murdered would make a difference, but of course not. That’s not how statistics work.
Excellent question. We frequently hear about how many fewer people are typically killed in knife, car, etc. attacks. I say ban everything harder than the human body*.
*Edited to specify “human body in the flaccid state,” because we may as well cut down on rape while we’re cutting down on murders.
Absolutely not! We should not be reactive. We need to find the root cause of the issues and address those! Guns are not the root-cause, neither are bombs, or trucks etc.
Why would someone want to kill anyone who hasn’t caused them harm? Let’s figure that out.
I can agree that gun laws can be reformed, but 90% of our efforts should go towards the root-cause. This is parts of what can be really irritating, we leave the real problem unsolved when we address things like guns etc. and we end up chasing our tails, going in circles, meanwhile we have cars that top out at 30mph, and there’s bubble wrap on every rounded corner so no one hurts themselves… I think it’s mental health/societal issues that cause these problems, and those are what need to be addressed.
There will always be crazies…but making it harder for them to kill tons of people & giving law enforcement a chance to nip it in bud b4 it happens might be worth a shot… Or just keep doing nothing maybe it will run its course.
So instead of making cocaine illegal, we should have just figured out why people do drugs and fix that instead?
Short of a crystal ball, the only option that isn’t pure guesswork is the reactive kind.
uh, YES, exaclty…but also, why would it be illegal in the first place? I have a hard time considering it a problem if a guy wants to do that and leave others alone.
and we have crystal balls, there called PFMEAs 
Serious question?
Lol if you found a way to reduce the margin of error on statistical modeling after accounting for every factor society has to offer I’d ask why you’re wasting your time on tnation instead of solving every woe on the planet
And it seems Americans are leading the way among Western nations as being dicks to each other.
Do any of you know the betting odds on an argument in favor of gun control coming from someone who first clarifies that he is a gun owner?
There is a certain amount of douche-ness (and it’s also not very constructive) that goes along with answering a question with a question…so, I ask is your “Serious question”?..a Serious question?
You said “the only option that isn’t pure guesswork is the reactive kind”…now you agree there is another option and change the argument.
Have a good day.
Very good. Military as well.