What’s Missing from the Parkland Shooting & Gun Control Debate?

[JeepFiend]

I’ll address your second point first: I am willing to be bothered if it can keep a few guns out of the hands of incompetents (in its broad meaning) just like I am willing to stand on the TSA line, etc. even though some weapons might get past the crack team at the detectors. I understand not everyone will agree. As to the hammer analogy, we make distinctions and draw lines all the time in our society. An Ar15 is not a hammer, just like an Ar15 is not a Abrams tank or a tactical nuke.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you would be ok if you were in line for a plane, they misidentified you and it took you 6 months to get a flight home? How about 3 day delay? I think you'd find you wouldn't be nearly as appeasable as you claim.

I wish you the best in convincing these folks that infringing upon their Consitutional rights is the right decision for them.

 

[AustinN4]

And no tougher back ground checks would have no effect on me I already have most of the guns I want........

Not for long, LOL

 

[jrbfishn]

Will more stringent background checks really really lower your chances to defend yourself? Would requiring some professional training before you are sold a firearm really impinge on your safety? It would certainly make my visits to the public range less dicey. People complain about the cost of training, but I suspect most gun owners have hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in their firearms, optics, ammo and accessories. I acknowledge this is government intervention in our lives, but it doesn’t seem onerous to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Will more infringements on honest people stop criminals, crazies or someone without a criminal history from committing a crime with a gun?
NO


Would required training stop people from committing a crime or negligently shooting someone?
NO. Tell me how that is working out with vehicles?

Think.about this. All those high school kids that want to raise the legal age to buy a long gun to 21, will be the same kids with driver training that are out driving and drinking this weekend. Why? Because it is their right to.

But those same drunk drivers will kill more people in a week with a car than will be killed in a year with long guns.

Mote kids die each year from bicycles, skate boards, or drowning in the family pool than are killed each year from long guns. Hell, more of them will choke to death on their food than will die from long guns this year.

Maybe we should receive licensed training before we are allowed to feed our children too. Makes sense to me.



Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[gaines67]

I am sorry that you were misidentified. It sucks no doubt. I am not trying to convince anyone just having a conversation. We can’t all have identical views and opinions and I appreciate the respectful back and forth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jrbfishn]

I don't care what laws you pass or how well trained you are.
Life is not fair or safe. It never has been and it never will be. Period.


Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[toddnjoyce]

The point I was trying to make was that many of our freedoms, including the right to bear arms, have consequences. I am willing to live with those consequences to ensure that those freedoms are not abridged. I don’t understand why we seem unwilling to simply admit this unassailable fact. If you allow few restrictions on the sale of firearms (freedom) you are going to have gun deaths either accidental or murders, though we would all strive to minimize them. Though I acknowledge that bad parenting and psychological issues have a significant impact on the mass killings and other criminal uses of firearms, ignoring the instruments themselves seems like a cop out. I, for one, am willing to wait 7-9 months for my pending sbr/silencer tax stamp. Is it a restriction on my freedoms, yes. Unreasonable? Effective? That’s a very complex question and the answer is likely in the eye of the beholder. I don’t buy the slippery slope formula of allowing some restrictions on firearms. In fact, I worry that if we are to doctrinaire about any restrictions, then severe and unreasonable ones will be forced upon us.Look what the president has proposed just this week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, you want to trust the same government that utterly failed to do its basic job in Parkland, Florida and Sulphur Springs, Texas to be competent enough to get enforce other restrictions on law abiding people?

Remember law enforcement and bureaucracy from local to federal levels completely failed to do what’s already required of them by law. In their own words, they blew it.

No thanks to that, and no thanks to people who want to sell out the Bill of Rights.

You know what requires even greater responsibility than owning a gun? Being a parent. Raising a child to be responsible. When you make it as hard to become a parent as it is to buy a suppressor, then maybe we will talk.

But until then, people are the problem. Property is not the problem.

 

[gaines67]

How would you make people better parents? I have to rely on some idiot to teach his kids right and wrong, proper values and the sanctity of life? How’s that working?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[avvidclif]

Background checks and licensing before they can breed. Simple. Sound familiar???

 

[easy rider]

First off, the problem isn't the gun or type of gun. The objects that killers use to kill are just that, objects. Second, there were so many things that went wrong in Broward county that made the school an opportune target. Lax laws on students, an FBI that couldn't be bothered, LEO's that failed and a gun free zone that only restricts the lawful. Asking law abiding citizens to give up rights only effects the law abiding citizen.

 

[Shady]

I think you missed the point that if the current laws were followed then most of the mass killers would not have been able to legally purchase the guns.

So you are saying stealing from your parents is legal ? Or are you saying its the parents fault for giving access to the guns to the kids. In any case what would stronger back ground checks have done to fix that?

Why is it more of a laudable goal than taking cars from everyone because a few drunks use them to kill people. And if you did that the number saved would be 100 times more than when a good guy used a gun for a mass shooting.

I don’t think background checks will prevent all crimes or all mass killings. I think that we can reduce some of them and that’s a laudable goal. Criminals will still be able to get firearms illegally and commit their crimes-that’s how it is and that’s how it’s always been. That said, the incidents we have been talking about Have generally been committed by individuals who have Obtained the weapons legally or taken them from their parents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shady]

Ya I will have them I will just be a felon with a gun so will be in less trouble than if I was not a felon win win

Not for long, LOL

 

[easy rider]

I think you missed the point that if the current laws were followed then most of the mass killers would not have been able to legally purchase the guns.

So you are saying stealing from your parents is legal ? Or are you saying its the parents fault for giving access to the guns to the kids. In any case what would stronger back ground checks have done to fix that?

Why is it more of a laudable goal than taking cars from everyone because a few drunks use them to kill people. And if you did that the number saved would be 100 times more than when a good guy used a gun for a mass shooting.

Last I heard, good guys don't use a gun for a mass shooting.

 

[Shady]

I thought the media claimed the LV shoot was good to go for buying weapons he must have been a good guy right he passed the BG check

Last I heard, good guys don't use a gun for a mass shooting.

 

[toddnjoyce]

I thought the media claimed the LV shoot was good to go for buying weapons he must have been a good guy right he passed the BG check

Look at it this way: would you like to forego your right to a speedy trial, your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure or the protections afforded to you under any of the other first eight amendments? Like it or not, the right to keep and bear arms is in the same category. It’s a privilege of citizens and an immunity from government. The 2A is restrictive on what the government can do, in the name of the citizenry.

 

[easy rider]

I thought the media claimed the LV shoot was good to go for buying weapons he must have been a good guy right he passed the BG check

If you are determined to be a mass shooter you cease to be a good guy in mine and I would hope most people's minds.

 

[pronstar]

There is no possible law that will prevent evil people from committing evil acts against others.

Tightening the noose on law-abiding citizens will do nothing to accomplish this, short of imprisonment and segregation of humans from one another.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Shady]

If you think I am advocating any 2a restrictions or agreeing with any new regulations or back ground restrictions you have not read many of my posts

Look at it this way: would you like to forego your right to a speedy trial, your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure or the protections afforded to you under any of the other first eight amendments? Like it or not, the right to keep and bear arms is in the same category. It’s a privilege of citizens and an immunity from government. The 2A is restrictive on what the government can do, in the name of the citizenry.

 

[Davetex]

I’ll address your second point first: I am willing to be bothered if it can keep a few guns out of the hands of incompetents (in its broad meaning) just like I am willing to stand on the TSA line, etc. even though some weapons might get past the crack team at the detectors. I understand not everyone will agree. As to the hammer analogy, we make distinctions and draw lines all the time in our society. An Ar15 is not a hammer, just like an Ar15 is not a Abrams tank or a tactical nuke.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your entire argument is based on the government doing it's job, correctly enforcing all the laws already on the books. Maybe you haven't been paying attention, that doesn't happen. In fact, the failure of government might very well be the root cause of all the combined massive failures we see today.

You should rethink your position.

 

[AustinN4]

Life is not fair or safe. It never has been and it never will be. Period.

^^Wisdom

 

[AustinN4]

There is no possible law that will prevent evil people from committing evil acts against others.

^^More wisdom