‘America is killing itself’: world reacts with horror and incomprehension to Texas shooting

[Yellowtail]

5 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

The left's position - We only want to ban "weapons of war" and "assault" weapons

 

The right's position - If we give in to your demands for banning semi automatic rifles it will be a foot in the door, and you will then come after handguns and leave us defenceless to protect our familes.

 

enter Joe Biden.

 

"Biden goes on anti-gun tirade, suggests there’s ‘no rational basis’ for 9mm pistols

Biden said. “A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body.

“So the idea of these high-caliber weapons is, uh, there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of thinking about self-protection, hunting,” the president went on."

https://nypost.com/2022/05/30/biden-goes-on-anti-gun-tirade-suggests-theres-no-rational-basis-for-9mm-pistols/

 

Well, at least we know their real aims now.

We have always known they want all guns out of the hands of the poor and middle class. 

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, morrobay said:

Of course the horse has left the barn. So high time to deal with the whackos: online surveillance, local surveillance, and if necessary forced detention in a facility where these nutjobs can be professionally evaluated and treated before release in any undetermined time.

Who's against open surveillance?

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, HaoleBoy said:

Thanks for the links ...

 

Look at the rate in '04 to '20 when the assault weapon ban ended.  Clearly shows the rate is climbing.  Stricter gun laws do work.

Except that deaths from assault-rifles only account for small percentage of gun deaths.

 

If you actually read the link about the all the polices the Clinton administration implemented, you would understand that the assault rifle legislation  had virtually no impact in the reduction of gun deaths. 

 

I think the increases in gun-deaths has much more to do with the overall increase in lawlessness and an increasing lack of value for human life. 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

If you actually read the link about the all the polices the Clinton administration implemented, you would understand that the assault rifle legislation  had virtually no impact in the reduction of gun deaths. 

 

I think the increases in gun-deaths has much more to do with the overall increase in lawlessness and an increasing lack of value for human life. 

 

 

Yes read it, quite a success:

 

Common sense gun safety laws bring down gun crime by 40 percent.
President Clinton fought the gun lobby and won common sense gun safety laws including the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban. Under the Clinton-Gore Administration, overall gun crime has declined 40 percent, and firearms related homicides committed by juveniles have dropped by nearly 50 percent. There were 227,000 fewer gun crimes in 1999 than 1992, and 1,246 fewer children were killed by guns than in 1992.

[James105]

22 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

We have always known they want all guns out of the hands of the poor and middle class. 

And the NRA just wants your money - they could care less about the poor and middle class kids getting slaughtered as their kids are safe in their expensive schools with private security paid for by your gun money.   They are peddling fear and you are buying it.  They love mass shootings as guess what happens every single time following a mass shooting?  Gun sales go up.   Do you know why they go up?  It's because they peddle the fear that this is the mass shooting that will result in some government bogeyman coming to take your guns away and you need more guns to defend your stockpile of guns.    You then propagate this nonsense and the cycle continues.  

 

You can shout "second amendment" rights as much as you want but those of us on the outside can see clearly what is happening here and why it continues to happen.   

[Yellowtail]

20 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes read it, quite a success:

 

Common sense gun safety laws bring down gun crime by 40 percent.
President Clinton fought the gun lobby and won common sense gun safety laws including the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban. Under the Clinton-Gore Administration, overall gun crime has declined 40 percent, and firearms related homicides committed by juveniles have dropped by nearly 50 percent. There were 227,000 fewer gun crimes in 1999 than 1992, and 1,246 fewer children were killed by guns than in 1992.

Yeah, I read it, that's how I know the assault rifle legislation had virtually noting to do with the reduction of gun deaths/crimes.

 

It is also worth noting that (I think) is was only the assault rife legislation that expired, yes? 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

Lol

 

Just scrolled down a dozen or so headlines in AseanNow's World News forum. Found this interestingly timed Headline........... 

 

U.S. Supreme Court may soon expand gun rights amid roiling debate

. 

 

Let the apoplexia begin! 

 

????????????

 

Cheers! 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

No, I am very interested in discussing any laws. What specific laws do you recommend? 

In a nutshell, register guns and license gun owners in a manner similar to how automobiles and drivers and registered and licensed. 

 

Pass laws imposing strict penalties for carrying a firearm while under the influence, much the same as driving a car under the influence. 

 

Impose penalties for reckless firearm handling similar to penalties for reckless driving.

 

Prosecute anyone who uses the lame excuse "I didn't think it was loaded" for criminal negligence.

 

Make it illegal to store a firearm in an unsafe manner, such as in an unlocked car.

 

I could come up with more, but you get the idea.  Make responsible ownership and handling of firearms a legal responsibility with stiff penalties for irresponsibility.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

• Gun ownership in the U.S. 1972-2021 | Statista

 

 

 

Wow, the Washington Post. In any event, your newspaper article does not support your claim that what I said was false. This is what I said:

 

"Yeah, I don't remember any gun or knife fights, even though virtually everyone had guns, that's why I am convinced the problem is the guns.  

 

Incidentally, gun ownership by household in the US is lower than it was 50 years ago, but yeah, it's the guns."

 

The data I provided above supports my claim.

 

 

Or you may just want to apologize, as you were wrong on gun ownership, and I think you're wrong on there being significantly  more than 1,400 assault-rifle deaths.

 

Looks to me like you're 0 for 2. 

 

 

Gun ownership implies number of guns owned.  The fact that a record number of guns are owned by a smaller number of people suggests that more gun fanatics are accumulating larger arsenals.  That is hardly reassuring.

[Rimmer]

An troll post has been removed

[KanchanaburiGuy]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes read it, quite a success:

 

Common sense gun safety laws bring down gun crime by 40 percent.
President Clinton fought the gun lobby and won common sense gun safety laws including the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban. Under the Clinton-Gore Administration, overall gun crime has declined 40 percent, and firearms related homicides committed by juveniles have dropped by nearly 50 percent. There were 227,000 fewer gun crimes in 1999 than 1992, and 1,246 fewer children were killed by guns than in 1992.

Correlation is not causation. 

 

During the time you cite, ALL CRIME went down dramatically. 

 

Can you prove that the drop in gun crime was exceptional? That it was related to gun legislation, specifically, as opposed to just being part of the overall, general downward trend in criminal behavior? 

 

More significantly, can you show that once the "Assault Weapons Ban" expired, gun crime took a meaningful jump back up? 

 

(Gun crime going down while all crime is going down........ is not very telling. But if gun crime reversed direction and started going up as other crime continued going down........ now that  might be worth noting!) 

 

. 

 

If I told you that 60% of criminals who use guns eat pizza, hot dogs or french fries in the week or month before committing their crimes............ would you then conclude that pizza, hot dogs and french fries lead to criminal behavior?

 

Of course not! 

 

Because correlation is not causation! 

 

But given the popularity of all three, pizza, hot dogs and french fries........... it would not be surprising to find that my made-up 60% statistic is accurate! 

 

The point is............. 

 

Sometimes, citing a statistic out of context is just fine. Other times, though, the context makes all the difference. 

 

Isolating stats showing drops in gun violence to make a point............ while ignoring the fact that ALL criminal behavior was dropping rapidly at the same time............ is somewhat dishonest, don't you think? 

 

Now, can you provide any evidence that he drop in gun crime happened for the reason you claim? 

 

Cheers! 

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Yeah, I read it, that's how I know the assault rifle legislation had virtually noting to do with the reduction of gun deaths/crimes.

 

It is also worth noting that (I think) is was only the assault rife legislation that expired, yes? 

Your reading comprehension needs an update. It was a success on all fronts including the ban on assault weapons and mass murders and saving the lives of over a 1000 children. Even with those assault weapons that were left in circulation the bans were effective as much as you try to argue the point with its significance.

 

Common sense gun safety laws bring down gun crime by 40 percent.
President Clinton fought the gun lobby and won common sense gun safety laws including the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban. Under the Clinton-Gore Administration, overall gun crime has declined 40 percent, and firearms related homicides committed by juveniles have dropped by nearly 50 percent. There were 227,000 fewer gun crimes in 1999 than 1992, and 1,246 fewer children were killed by guns than in 1992.

 

Mass shootings tripled when the assault weapon ban ended

The 1994 law barred the "manufacture, transfer, and possession" of about 118 firearm models and all magazines holding more than 10 rounds. People who already owned such weaponry could keep it. When the ban took effect, there were roughly 1.5 million assault weapons in private hands. An estimated 25 million weapons were equipped with large-capacity magazines.

The ban expired in 2004.

 

For further proof the tighter gun laws saves lives:

 

States with weaker gun laws have higher rates of firearm related homicides and suicides, study finds

"What this project does, is show what we've been saying for years: Gun laws save lives," said Nick Suplina, senior vice president of law and policy at Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. "We think this is going to be a really important tool for lawmakers, reporters and advocates that have been looking for the kind of visual tool that can make that case clearly."

 

Where is your evidence of your claim here?

"that's how I know the assault rifle legislation had virtually noting to do with the reduction of gun deaths/crimes."

 

 

 

 

 

[heybruce]

14 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

As I think you may remember, I support all of these, with the caveat that the registration and licensing fees be free. 

 

I would add that I think it should be much easier for an individual to lose their right to own guns. 

 

So we're almost in agreement on some things.  Free gun registration is reasonable, however the gun registration must be changed whenever the gun changes hands, and stolen guns must be reported immediately. 

 

I don't see why gun licensing should be free, since it should come after a mandatory gun safety course, preferably taught by former military small arms instructors (those guys will shoot anyone handling a gun in a dangerous manner).  Since training and licensing costs money, the people benefiting should pay.

 

I also want to see rigorous enforcement of these laws.  I would love to see headlines such as "Man arrested after reporting gun stolen from unlocked vehicle" and "Man arrested after gun stolen but not reported used in commission of crime" and "Man charged with criminal negligence after shooting neighbor with gun he thought was unloaded".

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

 

Sometimes, citing a statistic out of context is just fine. Other times, though, the context makes all the difference. 

 

Isolating stats showing drops in gun violence to make a point............ while ignoring the fact that ALL criminal behavior was dropping rapidly at the same time............ is somewhat dishonest, don't you think? 

 

Now, can you provide any evidence that he drop in gun crime happened for the reason you claim? 

 

Cheers! 

The links are provided in my post above, find your own answers to your questions, I have provided the facts........................cheers

[Yellowtail]

14 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"The point of my post was pointing out that another members post was misleading as it seemed to imply that assault rifles were the leading cause of death among kids and teens, which is just not true. "

 

Firearms are now the leading cause of death among Americans under 20.  Who said it was just assault rifles causing deaths?

 

"The previous analysis, which examined data through 2016, showed that firearm-related injuries were second only to motor vehicle crashes (both traffic-related and nontraffic-related) as the leading cause of death among children and adolescents, defined as persons 1 to 19 years of age.⁴ Since 2016, that gap has narrowed, and in 2020, firearm-related injuries became the leading cause of death in that age group"  https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2201761

 

 

"Probably 100 times as many alcohol related deaths as there are assault rifle deaths, and there are a more more guns than there are drinkers..."

 

Interesting.  You are comparing apples to oranges to, I don't know, edible plants maybe.

 

There are far more drinkers than there are assault rifles.  And, as I pointed out earlier, I've never heard of anyone killing 21 people with a whiskey bottle. 

When I foolishly made the claim about the number of deaths to persons under twenty from assault-rifles, I was still a POed about being taken to task for bringing all gun deaths into the discussion. Others (not you) claimed it was off-topic, which I thought was ridiculous. I apologize.

 

When you claim that firearms are the leading cause of deaths in Americans under 20, and fail to point out that a huge percentage of those deaths are suicide, it is misleading. And while I think that but for firearms, some of the kids that killed themselves would still be alive, I do not think that percentage is large. 

 

Incidentally, as I understand it, the leading cause of death among young black men has been firearms for quite a long time, but we don't hear a lot about that from most of media. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[metisdead]

A number of posts with off topic deflection comments regarding alcohol related automobile deaths have been removed.  Please stop with the deflection tactics. 

[heybruce]

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

When I foolishly made the claim about the number of deaths to persons under twenty from assault-rifles, I was still a POed about being taken to task for bringing all gun deaths into the discussion. Others (not you) claimed it was off-topic, which I thought was ridiculous. I apologize.

 

When you claim that firearms are the leading cause of deaths in Americans under 20, and fail to point out that a huge percentage of those deaths are suicide, it is misleading. And while I think that but for firearms, some of the kids that killed themselves would still be alive, I do not think that percentage is large. 

 

Incidentally, as I understand it, the leading cause of death among young black men has been firearms for quite a long time, but we don't hear a lot about that from most of media. 

 

I also did not point out how many gun deaths were accidental.  The pertinent point is that a great many young lives are lost unnecessarily because of guns.

 

Sadly, there are many preventable "leading cause of death" cases that are so common as to not be newsworthy.  Maybe newspapers and news programs should make daily reports about the number of deaths caused by obesity, alcoholism, smoking, drug use, guns, etc., but they don't and I think the public would tire of it.

 

Do you think all news sources should not only give these daily death reports, but also break them down by demographics?

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

So we're almost in agreement on some things.  Free gun registration is reasonable, however the gun registration must be changed whenever the gun changes hands, and stolen guns must be reported immediately. 

I agree, but it is not reasonable to assume that someone can report something has been stolen that they have no knowledge of it being stolen. An in the event the weapon is used in a clime good reason would have to be shown for not having known

 

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I don't see why gun licensing should be free, since it should come after a mandatory gun safety course, preferably taught by former military small arms instructors (those guys will shoot anyone handling a gun in a dangerous manner).  Since training and licensing costs money, the people benefiting should pay.

Because fees for gun licensing should not disproportionality hurt the poor. At least for the first attempt. I'm okay with charging for retesting, and I feel the same way about driver licenses.

 

If you're of age and can pass a rigorous test, you should not have to have training. 

 

We had driver-ed and gun safety at high school when I was a kid. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

I also want to see rigorous enforcement of these laws.  I would love to see headlines such as "Man arrested after reporting gun stolen from unlocked vehicle" and "Man arrested after gun stolen but not reported used in commission of crime" and "Man charged with criminal negligence after shooting neighbor with gun he thought was unloaded".

Absolutely. I support rigorous enforcement of most all laws.  

 

I have no interest in seeing arrest, I want to see convictions and sentencings. I would particularly like to see: "Man sentenced to one year after lying on gun registration form." or  "Man sentenced to five years after failing background check."  

[JCauto]

3 hours ago, coolcarer said:

Did you misunderstand my post and who I was responding to? The poster I was responding to brought up video games banning, I was making it clear to him that this was just another of his deflections on the real issues of stricter gun control. Got it now?

Yes, sorry about that. One might think that a post fully supporting the points you made might engender more politesse, but I understand your frustration in dealing with the gun-nuts and their relentless attempts to obfuscate, change the topic, raise completely unrelated points and otherwise justify their love of shooting guns despite the death that it comes along with. So long as it's not their death or someone they love, who GAF? I like to shoot guns, let them die! Freedumb!

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I agree, but it is not reasonable to assume that someone can report something has been stolen that they have no knowledge of it being stolen. An in the event the weapon is used in a clime good reason would have to be shown for not having known

 

Because fees for gun licensing should not disproportionality hurt the poor. At least for the first attempt. I'm okay with charging for retesting, and I feel the same way about driver licenses.

 

If you're of age and can pass a rigorous test, you should not have to have training. 

 

We had driver-ed and gun safety at high school when I was a kid. 

 

 

Absolutely. I support rigorous enforcement of most all laws.  

 

I have no interest in seeing arrest, I want to see convictions and sentencings. I would particularly like to see: "Man sentenced to one year after lying on gun registration form." or  "Man sentenced to five years after failing background check."  

Again we are largely in agreement.  However, not on this:

 

"If you're of age and can pass a rigorous test, you should not have to have training."

 

Just as a driving test is required for one's first driver license, so a demonstration of safe gun handling in a supervised shooting range should be required for a gun license.  There is a difference between knowing the rules and demonstrating one can handle a gun or vehicle in accordance with the rules.  Plus, having an armed small arms instructor calmly tell you that he will shoot you if you point your weapon in an unsafe direction makes a lasting impression.  It really drives home the point that guns are not toys and must be handled responsibly.

 

Of course requiring a demonstration of competence does not guarantee that a person will always handle a gun or vehicle competently.  However it will eliminate some of the clearly incompetent and make it easier to justify revoking a license and seizing a gun or vehicle after reckless behavior.

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Again we are largely in agreement.  However, not on this:

 

"If you're of age and can pass a rigorous test, you should not have to have training."

 

Just as a driving test is required for one's first driver license, so a demonstration of safe gun handling in a supervised shooting range should be required for a gun license.  There is a difference between knowing the rules and demonstrating one can handle a gun or vehicle in accordance with the rules.  Plus, having an armed small arms instructor calmly tell you that he will shoot you if you point your weapon in an unsafe direction makes a lasting impression.  It really drives home the point that guns are not toys and must be handled responsibly.

 

Of course requiring a demonstration of competence does not guarantee that a person will always handle a gun or vehicle competently.  However it will eliminate some of the clearly incompetent and make it easier to justify revoking a license and seizing a gun or vehicle after reckless behavior.

How is it we do not agree? I said one would have to pass a rigorous test, that would include demonstration, preferably at a police or military range, supervised by police or military personnel. I think dumping some dough into the National Guard for this would be perfect. Make for great community outreach as well. 

 

 I think the last thing we need is fifty governors (or worse senators) giving out exclusive "plum" licenses for approved firearm testing. I'm all for privatization, but not for this. 

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

How is it we do not agree? I said one would have to pass a rigorous test, that would include demonstration, preferably at a police or military range, supervised by police or military personnel. I think dumping some dough into the National Guard for this would be perfect. Make for great community outreach as well. 

 

 I think the last thing we need is fifty governors (or worse senators) giving out exclusive "plum" licenses for approved firearm testing. I'm all for privatization, but not for this. 

 

Ok, I assumed by test you meant a written exam only.  Of course a test performed on a shooting range would have to include instructions on safety procedures.  Personally I don't care if a gun owner couldn't hit the ground if he fell out a window, so long as he keeps his gun pointed in a safe direction and always treats it as if it were loaded.

[fredwiggy]

On 5/31/2022 at 9:02 AM, James105 said:

Yeah it seems that you have one group over there that seem to want to do whatever they can to stop little innocent kids getting slaughtered in school, and you have another group that seem to do whatever they can to ensure these little innocent kids continue to get slaughtered.   Not sure why it ended up as a left/right issue over there as the rest of the world (no matter what political persuasion) doesn't view the safeguarding of children as a politically divisive issue and make efforts to make kids safe.   

 

I get why the NRA is okay with kids being killed by the products they make money from, simply because of the amount money involved and that is a language I understand even if it is morally reprehensible.   I just don't get why the average American seems to be okay with it.   

Do you actually think anyone is ok with kids being killed, in any way? None but the most disturbed. People smoke cigarettes, drink whiskey and eat junk food. Do you think the people who make these products care if anyone dies from their use? Even if they do have a conscience, and not think about the repercussions, it IS all about money here, there and everywhere. The pharmaceutical companies are a multi billion dollar business, and doctors over prescribe narcotics daily that kill people daily. Do you think they care? Maybe they all care, but will it change? No, because money is involved.

[KhunLA]

23 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 I think the last thing we need is fifty governors (or worse senators) giving out exclusive "plum" licenses for approved firearm testing. I'm all for privatization, but not for this. 

That is part of the beauty, and the ugly of the USA.  It's a Republic with different rules for different mindsets, for different 'self' rule.  50 different states with 50 different rules.

 

Even the counties / parishes in the states have different regulations, along with the townships/towns.

 

When I got my concealed weapon permit (PA / Pennsylvania), I had to attend a class, free, sponsored by NRA at local Uni, with pamphlet to join IF wanting ????.   They taught the very basic of handling a handgun, and had to score decently on firing range.  Forget, but actually a high percent value, tight grouping.   Main thing was, if you ever had to use, they were making sure, you'd actually be able to hit what you are shooting at, and awareness what is beyond your target if you do miss.  Since most bullets don't stop till they hit something.

 

A good thing, as one attendee was an accident waiting to happen.  Sadly, that requirement was not for a permit to buy a firearm.   Then, in my county, you need 2 letter references, along with 2 signature reference (4 people total) & the chief of police had to sign the concealed carry permit application.   Then that went back to county, to be scrutinized once again, with background checks.  So not easy to get, and any reservations by anyone along the line, and it was denied.

 

That is not the same for every county, parish or state.  Some actually more strict, some less, some unrestricted.  The PA applications, should be countrywide for a permit to buy a firearm.  At the time that permit was submitted, probably owned about 10 firearms already.

[richard_smith237]

6 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

That is part of the beauty, and the ugly of the USA.  It's a Republic with different rules for different mindsets, for different 'self' rule.  50 different states with 50 different rules.

 

Even the counties / parishes in the states have different regulations, along with the townships/towns.

 

When I got my concealed weapon permit (PA / Pennsylvania), I had to attend a class, free, sponsored by NRA at local Uni, with pamphlet to join IF wanting ????.   They taught the very basic of handling a handgun, and had to score decently on firing range.  Forget, but actually a high percent value, tight grouping.   Main thing was, if you ever had to use, they were making sure, you'd actually be able to hit what you are shooting at, and awareness what is beyond your target if you do miss.  Since most bullets don't stop till they hit something.

 

A good thing, as one attendee was an accident waiting to happen.  Sadly, that requirement was not for a permit to buy a firearm.   Then, in my county, you need 2 references & the chief of police had to sign the concealed carry permit application.   Then that went back to county, to be scrutinized once again, with background checks.  So not easy to get, and any reservations by anyone along the line, and it was denied.

 

That is not the same for every county, parish or state.  Some actually more strict, some less, some unrestricted.  The PA applications, should be countrywide for a permit to buy a firearm.  At the time that permit was submitted, probably owned about 10 firearms already.

Why would you even want to carry a hand-gun? why would you even want a concealed carry permit ??

 

Is it just for bragging rights ?... 

 

Why is there any need to carry deadly weapon at all ????

 

Do you feel that your life is in so much constant thread that you are ready to ‘draw your weapon and defend yourself at any time’ ???

 

Honest questions: I really do not understand the mindset of those civilians who want to carry guns. I can only project that they feel more powerful and those around with them are too scared to mess.... and they like that feeling... 

 

This whole ideology is just so alien... 

 

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

Do you actually think anyone is ok with kids being killed, in any way? None but the most disturbed. People smoke cigarettes, drink whiskey and eat junk food. Do you think the people who make these products care if anyone dies from their use? Even if they do have a conscience, and not think about the repercussions, it IS all about money here, there and everywhere. The pharmaceutical companies are a multi billion dollar business, and doctors over prescribe narcotics daily that kill people daily. Do you think they care? Maybe they all care, but will it change? No, because money is involved.

Other wrongs do not make the fact that regular civilians can carry automatic weapons and guns of any kind any more acceptable. 

 

It is all about money... but the strawman arguments you present are fundamentally flawed... no one can go into a school with a big-mac and murder 20 kids. 

 

The cigarette argument you present carries more weight, however, legislation has been put in place to prevent and limit ‘second hand smoke’ impacting others.

 

But.. your argument really fall down when you over-egg the pudding, doctors don’t prescribe narcotics - the prescribe FDA approved medication... That is a debate many more people would agree with you on. However, using the over prescription of drugs does not in any manner or form justify the ready availability of automatic assault weapons and hand-guns to the general public.

[richard_smith237]

On 5/31/2022 at 8:33 AM, Yellowtail said:

Absolutely. I support rigorous enforcement of most all laws.  

 

I have no interest in seeing arrest, I want to see convictions and sentencings. I would particularly like to see: "Man sentenced to one year after lying on gun registration form." or  "Man sentenced to five years after failing background check."  

I think this is a good point...    But, background checks are not necessary for the private sale of guns...  

 

The law themselves need a major overhaul. 

 

But, I still always end back up at square one - Why is it necessary for any member of the public to have an automatic rifle ???... Start there and I always get to, why is it necessary for any member of the public to have any automatic weapon or hand-gun ??...

 

 

[fredwiggy]

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Why would you even want to carry a hand-gun? why would you even want a concealed carry permit ??

 

Is it just for bragging rights ?... 

 

Why is there any need to carry deadly weapon at all ????

 

Do you feel that your life is in so much constant thread that you are ready to ‘draw your weapon and defend yourself at any time’ ???

 

Honest questions: I really do not understand the mindset of those civilians who want to carry guns. I can only project that they feel more powerful and those around with them are too scared to mess.... and they like that feeling... 

 

This whole ideology is just so alien... 

 

It's for that one time that might happen, when someone walks up to you and tries to hurt, rob or rape you. If you have a handgun, you can defend yourself against that person who is already breaking the law by accosting you ,and it may turn worse. Not all people who rob just take the money and run. Most people who carry guns never take them out and hope not to.

[KhunLA]

14 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Why would you even want to carry a hand-gun? why would you even want a concealed carry permit ??

 

Why is there any need to carry deadly weapon at all ????

Answered already ... Good Bye Richard ... PEACE OUT

https://aseannow.com/topic/1260714-‘america-is-killing-itself’-world-reacts-with-horror-and-incomprehension-to-texas-shooting/page/7/#comment-17383780

 

[fredwiggy]

16 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Other wrongs do not make the fact that regular civilians can carry automatic weapons and guns of any kind any more acceptable. 

 

It is all about money... but the strawman arguments you present are fundamentally flawed... no one can go into a school with a big-mac and murder 20 kids. 

 

The cigarette argument you present carries more weight, however, legislation has been put in place to prevent and limit ‘second hand smoke’ impacting others.

 

But.. your argument really fall down when you over-egg the pudding, doctors don’t prescribe narcotics - the prescribe FDA approved medication... That is a debate many more people would agree with you on. However, using the over prescription of drugs does not in any manner or form justify the ready availability of automatic assault weapons and hand-guns to the general public.

No one can carry an automatic weapon. They are semi autos and in some states it can only be a handgun. Automatic assault rifles are only owned by Swat members, military and very few civilians. Whether a medication is FDA approved or not, doctors give them out like candy, and are responsible for hundreds of  thousands of deaths a year by over prescribing. My ex wife just died recently of a heart attack before age 60. She was on a Fentanyl patch, AND either morphine, Dilaudid or Vicodin, three drugs that are very strong alone. I told her for years that her doctor isn't doing right by her, until they had to take out her colon because of the narcotics slowing down her Gastro system. Like I mentioned many times, there are things that can diffuse a lot of these killings, but they need to be put in play immediately, something lawmakers don't do. No one can kill any kids with a Big Mac, but they can with most anything else, and metal detectors at every school, and an escort for strangers would stop most criminal activity at a school.