age you can buy a gun

[Josiah]

I'll support raising the age to buy a gun to defend life to 21 when they raise the age to buy an abortion to terminate life to 21....

I'll support requiring a mental examination before buying a gun to defend life when they require a mental examination to buy an abortion to terminate life.

 

[tango]

The one that controls what they can buy and who can buy it. More closely monitor the sale of guns, up the penelties for possessing and illegal gun and for those selling them. As for the rest of it I have read it over and over in articles by the NRA, all a part of their effort to do away with any gun laws. And I dont hate guns, I have owned them and I respect them. They are useful and I dont object to reasonable ownership, I do object to weapons that can kill multiple people in such a short amount of time.

OK, so what exactly do you suggest that prevents people who don't care about the law from breaking the law, while not intruding into the lives of the law-abiding? It's easy to say "the law that controls what they can buy" but without a more tangible suggestion it's just hot air.

Increasing penalties is ineffective against people who don't plan to survive their atrocity. You also end up with all sorts of quirks in the law, whereby one could easily claim that a convicted felon could not be legally expected to disclose the fact they had an illegal firearm because to impose such a requirement would violate their 5th Amendment rights.

I still maintain it would be far more useful to consider why people feel the urge to commit these atrocities in the first place, rather than fussing about the tool they choose to do it. Would the situation really be any better if some idiot was running around an elementary school swinging a meat cleaver?

 

[psalms 91]

OK, so what exactly do you suggest that prevents people who don't care about the law from breaking the law, while not intruding into the lives of the law-abiding? It's easy to say "the law that controls what they can buy" but without a more tangible suggestion it's just hot air.

Increasing penalties is ineffective against people who don't plan to survive their atrocity. You also end up with all sorts of quirks in the law, whereby one could easily claim that a convicted felon could not be legally expected to disclose the fact they had an illegal firearm because to impose such a requirement would violate their 5th Amendment rights.

I still maintain it would be far more useful to consider why people feel the urge to commit these atrocities in the first place, rather than fussing about the tool they choose to do it. Would the situation really be any better if some idiot was running around an elementary school swinging a meat cleaver?

In answer to part of this. Background checks keep felons from buying guns and if they lie they go to jail, mentally ill could also be added to that list. As to having a meat cleaver or a knife or a club, yes it would be better becaue the damage would not be as great and two you could try to defend yourself against such and if he would have been so armed I feel sure he would have been stopped.

 

[tango]

In answer to part of this. Background checks keep felons from buying guns and if they lie they go to jail, mentally ill could also be added to that list. As to having a meat cleaver or a knife or a club, yes it would be better becaue the damage would not be as great and two you could try to defend yourself against such and if he would have been so armed I feel sure he would have been stopped.

The background checks clearly didn't work in this instance so unless there's a specific suggestion beyond "do it better" it's hard to see how that is useful. The threat of jail is ineffective against someone who isn't expecting to even survive the atrocity they are planning. In any event, background checks stop convicted felons from buying a gun lawfully - there is only so much that can be done to disrupt the criminal underworld from moving weapons around. Hence the idea that the best course of action is to stop the bad guy getting a gun in the first place, once the bad guy has a gun (or other weapon that is deadly under the circumstances) the focus has to be on how to stop him as fast and effectively as possible.

Do you really think people are going to be effective fighting back against a madman swinging a meat cleaver? Just what would have stopped him, pending the arrival of the police? Perhaps the body count would have been lower but if the best we can hope for is that not quite as many will die, or some that might have died will "only" suffer horrendous injuries, then the proposal clearly isn't for a particularly good solution. If he wasn't using a meat cleaver but was using a bagful of home made pipe bombs would that be better? What if it was home grown chemical weapons? It's really not that difficult to turn everyday household objects into something very dangerous. Still illegal, but then so is going into a school and shooting people.

But let's assume we figure that at a high school someone is big enough to take down the madman, and bold enough to attempt it (or brazen enough to figure if they are going to die anyway they might as well go down fighting). Don't you think someone planning an atrocity is going to want to inflict maximum damage, so choose a weapon accordingly? If they are going to attack a high school where they might face people bigger and stronger than them (the equivalent of "a good guy with a gun" even if the good guy doesn't actually have a gun) they'll choose a weapon that can continue to inflict damage. Or they'll choose a softer target. How many elementary school children could fight back with any effect at all against an adult or late teenager with a meat cleaver?

 

[psalms 91]

The background checks clearly didn't work in this instance so unless there's a specific suggestion beyond "do it better" it's hard to see how that is useful. The threat of jail is ineffective against someone who isn't expecting to even survive the atrocity they are planning. In any event, background checks stop convicted felons from buying a gun lawfully - there is only so much that can be done to disrupt the criminal underworld from moving weapons around. Hence the idea that the best course of action is to stop the bad guy getting a gun in the first place, once the bad guy has a gun (or other weapon that is deadly under the circumstances) the focus has to be on how to stop him as fast and effectively as possible.

Do you really think people are going to be effective fighting back against a madman swinging a meat cleaver? Just what would have stopped him, pending the arrival of the police? Perhaps the body count would have been lower but if the best we can hope for is that not quite as many will die, or some that might have died will "only" suffer horrendous injuries, then the proposal clearly isn't for a particularly good solution. If he wasn't using a meat cleaver but was using a bagful of home made pipe bombs would that be better? What if it was home grown chemical weapons? It's really not that difficult to turn everyday household objects into something very dangerous. Still illegal, but then so is going into a school and shooting people.

But let's assume we figure that at a high school someone is big enough to take down the madman, and bold enough to attempt it (or brazen enough to figure if they are going to die anyway they might as well go down fighting). Don't you think someone planning an atrocity is going to want to inflict maximum damage, so choose a weapon accordingly? If they are going to attack a high school where they might face people bigger and stronger than them (the equivalent of "a good guy with a gun" even if the good guy doesn't actually have a gun) they'll choose a weapon that can continue to inflict damage. Or they'll choose a softer target. How many elementary school children could fight back with any effect at all against an adult or late teenager with a meat cleaver?

How many teachers would be able to fight back might be a better question. But dont worry the NRA will have its way and absolutely nothing will be done yet once again. One day I hope that the ones who push this agenda will have to stand in front of God and present Him with the same arguments as to why they did nothing or opposed any meaningful legislation. I would love to hear Gods thoughts on that, I think it would be interesting

 

[tango]

How many teachers would be able to fight back might be a better question. But dont worry the NRA will have its way and absolutely nothing will be done yet once again. One day I hope that the ones who push this agenda will have to stand in front of God and present Him with the same arguments as to why they did nothing or opposed any meaningful legislation. I would love to hear Gods thoughts on that, I think it would be interesting

How about addressing the issue rather than sidetracking and blaming the NRA for everything?

Switching around and wriggling like this does nothing to address the issue. But if you really want to go there, perhaps some people would like to stand before God and explain why they opposed legislation that might have stopped it earlier, thereby saving the lives of innocent children. Your argument here is little more than "we have to Do Something, this really badly flawed legislation is Doing Something, therefore we have to support it or we're part of the problem". Knee-jerk reactions generally aren't a good basis for sound legislation.

Isn't it more useful to address what might be done, in a useful manner, to prevent things like this before they even start? It seems so much more useful than fussing over the weapon of choice once someone already reaches the stage that all they see going forward is taking out as many people as they can before they go down.

 

[psalms 91]

How about addressing the issue rather than sidetracking and blaming the NRA for everything?

Switching around and wriggling like this does nothing to address the issue. But if you really want to go there, perhaps some people would like to stand before God and explain why they opposed legislation that might have stopped it earlier, thereby saving the lives of innocent children. Your argument here is little more than "we have to Do Something, this really badly flawed legislation is Doing Something, therefore we have to support it or we're part of the problem". Knee-jerk reactions generally aren't a good basis for sound legislation.

Isn't it more useful to address what might be done, in a useful manner, to prevent things like this before they even start? It seems so much more useful than fussing over the weapon of choice once someone already reaches the stage that all they see going forward is taking out as many people as they can before they go down.

I am all for that but it has to include the fact that some weapons such as the AR 15 should not be made available to the general public. Things like limiting magazine size, types of weapons etc. Then and only then can anything meaningful be done. I am somewhere in the middle on this issue but I guess that is not enough to satisfy people who support no legislation at all. I am all for arming responsible teachers and so on but the rest of what I am saying is also pertinent

 

[tango]

I am all for that but it has to include the fact that some weapons such as the AR 15 should not be made available to the general public. Things like limiting magazine size, types of weapons etc. Then and only then can anything meaningful be done. I am somewhere in the middle on this issue but I guess that is not enough to satisfy people who support no legislation at all. I am all for arming responsible teachers and so on but the rest of what I am saying is also pertinent

Why should an AR-15 not be available to the general public? You're making some blind statements here without a shred of anything to support what you're saying. What's so bad about an AR-15 that doesn't apply to a whole host of other weapons?

Limiting magazine size will achieve more or less nothing. Firstly criminals will simply keep their existing large capacity magazines, and secondly if you have any idea how fast you can reload a semi-automatic magazine you'd know that limiting the magazine size simply means your would-be killer needs a bunch more magazines (you can buy them over the counter at sports stores and if you're not planning to survive your attack you won't care if you run up a huge credit card bill buying them. We've all seen the likes of Keanu Reeves reloading his gun in the movies and, if anything, it's slowed down for artistic effect. When I was out shooting with a couple of friends in the US I was curious to see how fast I could reload, based on virtually no prior experience, and within a couple of magazines I could reload as fast as they do in the movies. I'm reliably informed that more serious shooters can reload so fast that if you were measuring the time between shots you'd struggle to tell which shots had the reload in between.

The type of weapons people can own is already limited. You can't buy a fully automatic weapon without additional licensing and even then they are hideously expensive. A friend of a friend has a fully automatic rifle, with appropriate licensing, and reckoned it was worth somewhere north of $10,000. If you want to argue that the types of weapon that people can own should be limited how about coming up with some concrete suggestions for what should be banned, why it should be banned, and how to objectively differentiate between an acceptable and an unacceptable weapon. Otherwise all you have is the typical bleating about "assault weapons" without even the faintest hint of what defines an "assault weapon".

 

[NewCreation435]

I am all for that but it has to include the fact that some weapons such as the AR 15 should not be made available to the general public. Things like limiting magazine size, types of weapons etc. Then and only then can anything meaningful be done. I am somewhere in the middle on this issue but I guess that is not enough to satisfy people who support no legislation at all. I am all for arming responsible teachers and so on but the rest of what I am saying is also pertinent

At first the idea of arming teachers sounded good to me, but after thinking about it and being in a few schools and seeing how chaotic it is I doubt it would help. I would think it would make it easier for some kids who have problems with their temper to reach out in anger and get their teachers gun and start shooting. And kids have outbursts at schools on a daily basis now, especially in some of the alternative schools

 

[Andrew]

Arming teachers is scary, they would be like body guards and im not sure they would even accept such responsibilities and not only that but it could make problems worse.

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[tango]

The curious thing is that the people who refuse to accept the notion that "the solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", when faced with a situation like this, typically want a situation where the only option is to call the police. In other words, when faced with a bad guy with a gun they want to call on a good guy with a gun, all the while claiming that a good guy with a gun isn't a solution to a bad guy with a gun.

 

[Josiah]

The curious thing is that the people who refuse to accept the notion that "the solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", when faced with a situation like this, typically want a situation where the only option is to call the police. In other words, when faced with a bad guy with a gun they want to call on a good guy with a gun, all the while claiming that a good guy with a gun isn't a solution to a bad guy with a gun.

The very Congress that ridicules the "the solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" deals with the threat of a bad guy with a gun with lots of good guys with lots of big guns. Been to the Capitol?

 

[tango]

The very Congress that ridicules the "the solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" deals with the threat of a bad guy with a gun with lots of good guys with lots of big guns. Been to the Capitol?

Not for a while, but yes. Good guys with guns all around. Even though they apparently aren't a solution to anything.

 

[psalms 91]

Why should an AR-15 not be available to the general public? You're making some blind statements here without a shred of anything to support what you're saying. What's so bad about an AR-15 that doesn't apply to a whole host of other weapons?

Limiting magazine size will achieve more or less nothing. Firstly criminals will simply keep their existing large capacity magazines, and secondly if you have any idea how fast you can reload a semi-automatic magazine you'd know that limiting the magazine size simply means your would-be killer needs a bunch more magazines (you can buy them over the counter at sports stores and if you're not planning to survive your attack you won't care if you run up a huge credit card bill buying them. We've all seen the likes of Keanu Reeves reloading his gun in the movies and, if anything, it's slowed down for artistic effect. When I was out shooting with a couple of friends in the US I was curious to see how fast I could reload, based on virtually no prior experience, and within a couple of magazines I could reload as fast as they do in the movies. I'm reliably informed that more serious shooters can reload so fast that if you were measuring the time between shots you'd struggle to tell which shots had the reload in between.

The type of weapons people can own is already limited. You can't buy a fully automatic weapon without additional licensing and even then they are hideously expensive. A friend of a friend has a fully automatic rifle, with appropriate licensing, and reckoned it was worth somewhere north of $10,000. If you want to argue that the types of weapon that people can own should be limited how about coming up with some concrete suggestions for what should be banned, why it should be banned, and how to objectively differentiate between an acceptable and an unacceptable weapon. Otherwise all you have is the typical bleating about "assault weapons" without even the faintest hint of what defines an "assault weapon".

I can think of hundreds of people gunned down that are evidence. Plain and simple they kill at an appaling rate. Why not make machine guns available as well?

 

[Stravinsk]

I can think of hundreds of people gunned down that are evidence. Plain and simple they kill at an appaling rate. Why not make machine guns available as well?

Psh. You just saw some garbage news and it convinced you that you need a bleeding heart for yet another fake story they are pushing.

When it comes time to bomb North Korea, you'll be all for the guns and bombs. The thousands or tens of thousands will outweigh the hundreds, but it's what the corporate media will want, and television zombies will be baying for blood, no doubt for the same or similar virtuous reasons they opposed them in another context.


This whole thing (the shooting this thread is based on) is yet another sick extension of the garbage false flags that are designed to convince the US public to give up their firearms. It's painfully obvious to those of us not zombified by corporate garbage media.

If I was a homicidal individual intent on causing mass death and then trying to "blend in" with my victims, I wouldn't even use a gun. There are lots of ways to kill lots of people and such an obvious weapon would be least on the list.

 

[psalms 91]

Sigh, yet one more conspiricy huh? I am done with this as there are plenty of others outraged and sickened by this and arguing in this thread is like talking to the NRA for common sense rules, useless. I do see that politicians if they dont finally listen will pay a price for it finally. It is time for common sense to take over and replace the rabid rhetoric of the NRA

 

[Stravinsk]

Sigh, yet one more conspiricy huh? I am done with this as there are plenty of others outraged and sickened by this and arguing in this thread is like talking to the NRA for common sense rules, useless. I do see that politicians if they dont finally listen will pay a price for it finally. It is time for common sense to take over and replace the rabid rhetoric of the NRA

No, psalms 91. Conspiracies don't exist. No one in media or government ever plans or conspires to deceive people for profit or power. They are all angels. None of them are motivated by anything other than good or evil. Just like the comic books we read. After all, God controls all the governments, right? (Satan says different: Matthew 4:8-9) Even the one America rebelled against in the revolutionary war, lol. The Gulf of Tonkin attack was real. A tiny country in the south pacific called Vietnam was going to take over the world with Communism, and so many people just believed it and were ready to murder or support murder to rid the world of the scourge.

Like you believed it. Like you believe all the garbage you watch on corporate television without question and scorn and mock anything that questions it.

 

[tango]

I can think of hundreds of people gunned down that are evidence. Plain and simple they kill at an appaling rate. Why not make machine guns available as well?

An AR15 doesn't fire that much faster than a semiautomatic handgun in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing (I've fired an AR-15 as well as a variety of semi-automatic handguns). Evidence that some people have died because of bullets fired from an AR-15 isn't a reason to take them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens any more than evidence of people killed by V8 muscle cars is reason to take them away. If you want to use deaths in isolation as a statistic, perhaps we should ban trucks because they have been used in terror attacks in Europe. Then there was the pressure cooker attack at the Boston Marathon so perhaps we should ban pressure cookers. What about the nail bombs used in London in the late 90s - should we ban nails?

You're using lots of emotive language here but not providing a shred of anything concrete to back your arguments. Do you know how fast an AR-15 fires? Do you know how fast you can fire a semi-automatic handgun? And if you're proposing to ban some weapons and not others, how would you objectively differentiate between an acceptable weapon and an unacceptable weapon?

 

[tango]

Sigh, yet one more conspiricy huh? I am done with this as there are plenty of others outraged and sickened by this and arguing in this thread is like talking to the NRA for common sense rules, useless. I do see that politicians if they dont finally listen will pay a price for it finally. It is time for common sense to take over and replace the rabid rhetoric of the NRA

So you're back to blaming the NRA for a lack of common sense, all the while refusing to write anything objective and reverting to lots of hand wringing and emotional appeals that Something Must Be Done without taking the time to think of what might usefully be done.

It's easy to refer to "rabid rhetoric" but it would be far more useful to actually address the rhetoric and explain why you think it's wrong. Like, for example, why people refuse to accept the idea that "the solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" but then when faced with a bad guy with a gun they want to call the police (i.e. a good guy with a gun).

When law-abiding gun owners (there's a clue in the name, specifically the "law-abiding" bit) are estimated to own anything up to 500,000,000 guns and anything up to 1,000,000,000,000 rounds of ammunition, don't you think that the entire nation would be a bloodbath if that section of the population were the problem?

 

[tango]

Here's a thought. Where do mass shootings take place?

Do they take place at NRA chapter meetings? Nope. I wonder why.
Do they take place near police stations? No.
Do they take place at shooting ranges? No

Do they take place at schools, where guns are outlawed? Looks that way.

It's almost as if the people who plan these attacks look for soft targets where they are unlikely to face return fire for a while. I wonder why that might be.