justincredible;1859970 wrote:What would you consider a viable gun control solution to prevent someone from "going postal" after a bad day?

It's a numbers thing. Owning a gun increases your chance of being killed by one.

salto;1859971 wrote:It's a numbers thing. Owning a gun increases your chance of being killed by one.

Owning a pool increases your chance of drowning.

justincredible;1859972 wrote:Owning a pool increases your chance of drowning.

Between you talking about swimming and Like_that comparing USA to the Middle East.....wha'?

As for a solution to prevent someone from "going postal" less control by the unempathetic party in our Government.

salto;1859971 wrote:It's a numbers thing. Owning a gun increases your chance of being killed by one.

Or decreases it, if you're carrying


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

salto;1859973 wrote:Between you talking about swimming and Like_that comparing USA to the Middle East.....wha'?

As for a solution to prevent someone from "going postal" less control by the unempathetic party in our Government.

I am starting to think you don't know how analogies work. :RpS_lol:

Do you think banning the AR-15 would work?

Salto, you are a fuckig retard. Literally.

like_that;1859975 wrote:I am starting to think you don't know how analogies work. :RpS_lol:

My bad, I forgot to turn on the sarcastic font. I know what he was saying.....ffs. Just responding with stupidity. Owning a pool is not exactly comparable to owning a gun.
If you've had a bad day and decide to drown yourself, it'll take a bit more effort than pulling a trigger.



As for if banning one type of gun "would work", define work. Would more restrictions on types of weapons civilians could own lower massacres....? We're going back to that numbers game.
Personally, I think there needs more psych screening before guns are legally sold in the open market.
[FONT=&amp]
Senate Bill 199 passed in December. It lets people with concealed carry permits bring their guns onto private property regardless of the policies and wishes of the company or property owner. I'm not for this bill.


[/FONT]

iclfan2;1859976 wrote:Salto, you are a fuckig retard. Literally.

Strong rebuttal. You're like the guy who replies "Well, fuck you!" at a debate.

salto;1859971 wrote:It's a numbers thing. Owning a gun increases your chance of being killed by one.

Not true. Your chances of being killed by someone using a gun are approximately six times less being killed with (not by, NO ONE is killed BY a gun) a gun than using one to successfully defending oneself.

salto;1859980 wrote:My bad, I forgot to turn on the sarcastic font.

As for if banning one type of gun, "would work" define work. Would more restrictions on types of weapons civilians could own, it's going back to that numbers game.



[/FONT]

.

Ok then, what if I told you we already banned the AR-15 for 10 years and gun crime was higher during the ban than post ban. This is a fact, you're more than welcome to search yourself.

Would you then recommend to ban more types of guns? Or how about pass more laws when the numbers don't drop to your liking? It's only a numbers game after all.

like_that;1859982 wrote:Ok then, what if I told you we already banned the AR-15 for 10 years and gun crime was higher during the ban than post ban. This is a fact, you're more than welcome to search yourself.

Would you then recommend to ban more types of guns? Or how about pass more laws when the numbers don't drop to your liking? It's only a numbers game after all.

I know most gun crimes happen with hand guns. Thanks.

Matter of fact, the AR-15 was never fully banned.

hope this helps.

like_that;1859982 wrote:Ok then, what if I told you we already banned the AR-15 for 10 years and gun crime was higher during the ban than post ban. This is a fact, you're more than welcome to search yourself.

Would you then recommend to ban more types of guns? Or how about pass more laws when the numbers don't drop to your liking? It's only a numbers game after all.

I know most gun crimes happen with hand guns and the AR-15 was never fully banned.

hope this helps.

Massacres like the GOP softball shooter and every day gun violence are not the same.

like_that;1859964 wrote:I'll give you that. He used redneck gym teacher grammar, but the main point I gathered from it was the 2nd amendment protects us from tyranny, which is what the purpose of the amendment is. If that is not what he meant, then I take back my comment about him educating you. You still need to pick up a US history book regardless.

How rich, said is calling me a dumbass, while he can't comprehend the 2nd amendment and US History. I had a solid idea what cc was trying to say and I was trying to get a clarification from FFL to see what exact mindset he was referring to since it was pretty easy to interpret CC's post in different ways. Try harder.

I tried to reply earlier but I couldn't really figure out what he was trying to say either, so I let it go.
IMO (and I can't emphasize that enough), I don't understand when people justify gun ownership as protecting themselves from the government or foreign invasion. And some of the stuff Belly use to say was ridiculous. You're right - years and years from now it might be different. But right now there's a million reasons why guns would ever be illegal here. So I don't get the "government could never take us over or take them away" argument.
What he said about being invaded by five different countries is absurd. In the meantime, people get shot practicing softball, at the movies, at school, etc.

Salto is doing his best sleeper impersonation

friendfromlowry;1859989 wrote: I don't understand when people justify gun ownership as protecting themselves from the government or foreign invasion. But right now there's a million reasons why guns would ever be illegal here. So I don't get the "government could never take us over or take them away" argument.

Some justify their gun ownership from an Amendment to the constitution, that happened over 200 years ago. They feel better about their ability to fight for their freedom.

salto;1859995 wrote:Some justify their gun ownership from an Amendment to the constitution, that happened over 200 years ago. They feel better about their ability to fight for their freedom.

Some of those amendments have also allowed some very disgusting shitbags to walk free of their crimes. They also many times hinder law enforcement from incarcerating potentially dangerous individuals who eventually take the lives of innocent individuals. Why is this acceptable? Because it makes it very difficult for the government to frivolously incarcerate individuals it does not like.

If you are worried about armed men killing people no entity in the history of mankind has been more proficient at doing so than government.

like_that;1859982 wrote:Ok then, what if I told you we already banned the AR-15 for 10 years and gun crime was higher during the ban than post ban. This is a fact, you're more than welcome to search yourself.

Would you then recommend to ban more types of guns? Or how about pass more laws when the numbers don't drop to your liking? It's only a numbers game after all.

I agree focusing on types of guns is a mistake. It should be like securities law where the focus is on what sorts of people should be able to buy certain securities. If we can create a standard for what constitutes an accredited investor without this being a violation of the first amendment we can create a standard for an accredited firearm purchaser, etc. without violating the second amendment. Yes, some bad people will still get guns just as there is still securities fraud but the securities acts and the blue sky laws have been very effective at creating reasonably safe and sound and robust markets for capital formation.

A simple standard might be what it takes to get a concealed carry license as those with concealed carry licenses commit less crime than the general population. Make it a felony to sell a non-exempt unregistered firearm to unqualified purchaser like it's a felony to sell a non-exempt unregistered security to an unaccredited investor and the market players will largely self-regulate save the fraudsters and criminals - like securities law - creating a small population for law enforcement to go after.

And again, if securities laws don't violate the first amendment you can't say a similar regulatory structure violates the second amendment in my humble opinion.

salto;1859995 wrote:Some justify their gun ownership from an Amendment to the constitution, that happened over 200 years ago. They feel better about their ability to fight for their freedom.

So, I take this as you no longer have a legitimate argument and choose to ignore history (some very recent history)? Got it. It's your right to be ignorant.

friendfromlowry;1859989 wrote:I tried to reply earlier but I couldn't really figure out what he was trying to say either, so I let it go.
IMO (and I can't emphasize that enough), I don't understand when people justify gun ownership as protecting themselves from the government or foreign invasion. And some of the stuff Belly use to say was ridiculous. You're right - years and years from now it might be different. But right now there's a million reasons why guns would ever be illegal here. So I don't get the "government could never take us over or take them away" argument.
What he said about being invaded by five different countries is absurd. In the meantime, people get shot practicing softball, at the movies, at school, etc.

That's my point though. It's really easy to take that for granted right now, until it's taken away from you. Just like it's easy to take the first amendment for granted right now as well. It's another form of checks and balances. I'll stop mentioning Venezuela, but there are other also plenty of examples in history where a country's Government rose to tyranny by chipping away at gun rights. It even happened on a lesser scale in our own country (unarmed blacks in the south vs armed blacks in the north).


There are several other things this country can do to reduce gun crimes well before chipping away at gun rights imo.

BoatShoes;1860013 wrote:I agree focusing on types of guns is a mistake. It should be like securities law where the focus is on what sorts of people should be able to buy certain securities. If we can create a standard for what constitutes an accredited investor without this being a violation of the first amendment we can create a standard for an accredited firearm purchaser, etc. without violating the second amendment. Yes, some bad people will still get guns just as there is still securities fraud but the securities acts and the blue sky laws have been very effective at creating reasonably safe and sound and robust markets for capital formation.

A simple standard might be what it takes to get a concealed carry license as those with concealed carry licenses commit less crime than the general population. Make it a felony to sell a non-exempt unregistered firearm to unqualified purchaser like it's a felony to sell a non-exempt unregistered security to an unaccredited investor and the market players will largely self-regulate save the fraudsters and criminals - like securities law - creating a small population for law enforcement to go after.

And again, if securities laws don't violate the first amendment you can't say a similar regulatory structure violates the second amendment in my humble opinion.

The problem is creating a legitimate standard. If it can be done, then I'm sure nobody would complain. So far the only suggestion I have seen is ban gun ownership to those on the no fly list, which is a severely flawed list. Not to mention a slippery slope considering the Government could place anyone on the list without notification.

like_that;1860014 wrote: It's your right to be ignorant.

Just like it's your right to be delusional.

People are looking at the wrong branch of government for the problem. Have the executive fix the bi-partisan anemic track record of enforcing existing law, then talk to me about new legislation.

salto;1859966 wrote:As for my musket comment, I was referring to the times when the constitution was written, as in the 200+ years ago. Back when Militias were important, like fighting off the Queen. Like back during the Revolution war.....keep up junior.

Just wanted to point out that it was a king. King George III.
That's an important fact.

Safe to say that said is likely not a constitutional scholar by trade.