You must first be logged in to edit a post.
If you are not registered, please click "Create Account".
| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: [1] 2 |
LIRascal
drama. daily.
Member since 3/11 7287 total posts
Name:
Michelle
|
That gun topic
I feel this is a must-read, personally.
My response to many of the gun and shootings threads should not be misinterpreted as Conservatism or an "I don't care" attitude, at all. In fact, I am in favor of a viable solution. I don't think anyone in their right minds wants anyone to die at the hands of a deranged animal with a gun.
But we need to stop saying the same things over and over and we need to stop "making up" things that we think are "facts" in order to address the issue. If we just keep saying "something needs to be done", we haven't done our research and are only expressing our frustrations that what HAS been done isn't working. If we step back and analyze facts we can then decide what we can do to stop mass shootings, once and for all.
LINK to the article
"But given how the most vocal advocates of gun control tend to get basic facts wrong and have a history of praising countries such as Australia, which banned guns, it’s easy to see why gun-rights supporters are suspicious about what their real goal is.
In 2015, the New York Times ran its first front page editorial in 95 years to call for, in part, the confiscation of millions of guns. Last month, columnist Bret Stephens called for outright repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
The simple fact is that many elites in places such as New York and Los Angeles, regardless of ideology (Stephens is a conservative), just don’t like guns or the culture of people who do. One can see this in the suddenly pervasive fad — common in the pages of the New York Times and on Twitter — of mocking people who offer “thoughts and prayers” for the victims of mass shootings, if they don’t also subscribe to sweeping new gun-control measures."
|
Posted 11/6/17 10:15 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
LIRascal
drama. daily.
Member since 3/11 7287 total posts
Name:
Michelle
|
Re: That gun topic
What Obama did:
23 Executive actions made by Obama on guns
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make itwidely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effectiveuse of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to developinnovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
|
| Posted 11/6/17 10:21 PM |
| |
|
LIRascal
drama. daily.
Member since 3/11 7287 total posts
Name:
Michelle
|
That gun topic
In 1989, then President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order halting the importation of some semi-automatic firearms after a mass school shooting Stockton, California. He based his executive order on the 1968 Gun Control Act and used it to ban the shipment of what could be considered “assault weapons” unless they were used for sporting purposes. (Question: Did the free republic cease to exist then?)
In 1998, then President Bill Clinton also issued an executive order to ban the importation of more than 50 semiautomatic “assault weapons” that had been modified to get through that “sporting purposes” exemption.
|
| Posted 11/6/17 10:23 PM |
| |
|
evrythng4areason
And then there were 4
Member since 1/10 5224 total posts
Name:
Kayla
|
That gun topic
New York also established the SAFE act in 2013 as a response to Sandy Hook
|
| Posted 11/7/17 6:49 AM |
| |
|
evrythng4areason
And then there were 4
Member since 1/10 5224 total posts
Name:
Kayla
|
That gun topic
Additionally, 15,085 people died as a result of guns in 2016.
More than 64,000 people died from drug overdoses.
|
| Posted 11/7/17 7:12 AM |
| |
|
MsSissy
xoxoxo
Member since 3/07 39159 total posts
Name:
|
Re: That gun topic
Posted by LIRascal
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
So much for this one. Since the texas shooter slipped through the cracks.
But I understand what you're saying. Things are being done. Just seems they aren't really working. And yes this could be my frustration talking.
Posted by evrythng4areason
Additionally, 15,085 people died as a result of guns in 2016.
More than 64,000 people died from drug overdoses.
Where did you get the 15,085 from?
A report I saw said over 35K.
As for the drug overdose we all can agree that more needs to be done on that. Thing is I'm not afraid of walking around and being killed from a drug overdose. However I am afraid of walking around and being killed by a gun. That's something I have no control over.
|
| Posted 11/7/17 8:11 AM |
| |
|
MrsT809
LIF Adult
Member since 9/09 12167 total posts
Name:
|
Re: That gun topic
Posted by MsSissy
Posted by LIRascal
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
So much for this one. Since the texas shooter slipped through the cracks.
But I understand what you're saying. Things are being done. Just seems they aren't really working. And yes this could be my frustration talking.
Posted by evrythng4areason
Additionally, 15,085 people died as a result of guns in 2016.
More than 64,000 people died from drug overdoses.
Where did you get the 15,085 from?
A report I saw said over 35K.
As for the drug overdose we all can agree that more needs to be done on that. Thing is I'm not afraid of walking around and being killed from a drug overdose. However I am afraid of walking around and being killed by a gun. That's something I have no control over.
Not positive but my guess is the 35k includes suicides and 15k does not. Even if you want to discount suicides from the gun debate stats show that suicide attempted using guns are by far the most deadly compared to other methods.
|
| Posted 11/7/17 8:39 AM |
| |
|
LuckyStar
LIF Adult
Member since 7/14 7274 total posts
Name:
|
Re: That gun topic
Posted by evrythng4areason
Additionally, 15,085 people died as a result of guns in 2016.
More than 64,000 people died from drug overdoses.
Someone chooses to take drugs. No one chooses to get killed at church. No one chooses to send their child to school and not have them come home.
I'm not saying a drug problem doesn't exist, it does, but these are two issues that aren't even remotely similar.
|
| Posted 11/7/17 8:42 AM |
| |
|
NervousNell
Just another chapter in life..
Member since 11/09 54921 total posts
Name:
..being a mommy and being a wife!
|
Re: That gun topic
Posted by LuckyStar
Posted by evrythng4areason
Additionally, 15,085 people died as a result of guns in 2016.
More than 64,000 people died from drug overdoses.
Someone chooses to take drugs. No one chooses to get killed at church. No one chooses to send their child to school and not have them come home.
I'm not saying a drug problem doesn't exist, it does, but these are two issues that aren't even remotely similar.
But sadly, nothing is going to change anytime soon when the president says- Gun control would have left 100's more dead in Texas.
|
| Posted 11/7/17 8:47 AM |
| |
|
Hofstra26
Love to Bake!
Member since 7/06 27915 total posts
Name:
|
Re: That gun topic
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by LuckyStar
Posted by evrythng4areason
Additionally, 15,085 people died as a result of guns in 2016.
More than 64,000 people died from drug overdoses.
Someone chooses to take drugs. No one chooses to get killed at church. No one chooses to send their child to school and not have them come home.
I'm not saying a drug problem doesn't exist, it does, but these are two issues that aren't even remotely similar.
But sadly, nothing is going to change anytime soon when the president says- Gun control would have left 100's more dead in Texas.
ITA!
|
| Posted 11/7/17 9:06 AM |
| |
|
mommy2B3
2 boys 2 girls!!!!
Member since 7/08 3324 total posts
Name:
M
|
Re: That gun topic
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by LuckyStar
Posted by evrythng4areason
Additionally, 15,085 people died as a result of guns in 2016.
More than 64,000 people died from drug overdoses.
Someone chooses to take drugs. No one chooses to get killed at church. No one chooses to send their child to school and not have them come home.
I'm not saying a drug problem doesn't exist, it does, but these are two issues that aren't even remotely similar.
But sadly, nothing is going to change anytime soon when the president says- Gun control would have left 100's more dead in Texas.
But he’s possibly right  ((can’t believe I said that)). The fact is, in Texas cops are not able to get to most situations in a timely fashion. A trained civilian was able to shoot the actual shooter and the lunatic dropped his gun and fled town. It’s the reason I now have a concealed carry permit, and you will find me at a shooting range every month to keep my wits about me.
Personally, the Air Force let us down in this scenario, and it’s absolutely disgusting and there needs to be better systems in place for bureaucratic “errors”.
|
| Posted 11/7/17 9:14 AM |
| |
|
GoldenRod
10 years on LIF!
Member since 11/06 26792 total posts
Name:
Shawn
|
Re: That gun topic
Posted by mommy2B3
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by LuckyStar
Posted by evrythng4areason
Additionally, 15,085 people died as a result of guns in 2016.
More than 64,000 people died from drug overdoses.
Someone chooses to take drugs. No one chooses to get killed at church. No one chooses to send their child to school and not have them come home.
I'm not saying a drug problem doesn't exist, it does, but these are two issues that aren't even remotely similar.
But sadly, nothing is going to change anytime soon when the president says- Gun control would have left 100's more dead in Texas.
But he’s possibly right ((can’t believe I said that)). The fact is, in Texas cops are not able to get to most situations in a timely fashion. A trained civilian was able to shoot the actual shooter and the lunatic dropped his gun and fled town. It’s the reason I now have a concealed carry permit, and you will find me at a shooting range every month to keep my wits about me.
Personally, the Air Force let us down in this scenario, and it’s absolutely disgusting and there needs to be better systems in place for bureaucratic “errors”.
But he used a rifle, and rifles are rarely regulated. Even in NY, you don't need a permit for a rifle, so in this particular case, the gun control issue isn't relevant, as far as the civilian who shot the attacker is concerned.
ETA: Just read a story where he said it was an AR-15 that he used.
A hunting rifle still could have taken the shooter out.
If the shooter was either still in the church, or just leaving, the other guy was basically shooting his semi-auto rifle into the same church.
Message edited 11/7/2017 10:29:30 AM.
|
| Posted 11/7/17 9:24 AM |
| |
|
mrsrainbow
LIF Adult
Member since 1/17 1465 total posts
Name:
|
That gun topic
I think once the government stops being a patsy of the NRA and gunmakers, and taking money to prevent gun reform, we will never be able to take control of the situation and stop these things from occurring.
On a side note - why is that we rarely hear of mass shootings in other countries? Do they have strict gun control laws? Do they have better mental health resources? I think our country is so flawed (I know I am being broad and vague, as is the myriad ways in which our country is indeed flawed) that we will never see an end to this in our lifetime. For hundreds of years its been ingrained into people that they NEED guns and SHOULD have guns and the constitution says so...so why would they willingly change their minds? If anything, mass shootings only prove to them that they need guns for protection.
|
| Posted 11/7/17 9:34 AM |
| |
|
NervousNell
Just another chapter in life..
Member since 11/09 54921 total posts
Name:
..being a mommy and being a wife!
|
Re: That gun topic
Posted by mrsrainbow
I think once the government stops being a patsy of the NRA and gunmakers, and taking money to prevent gun reform, we will never be able to take control of the situation and stop these things from occurring.
On a side note - why is that we rarely hear of mass shootings in other countries? Do they have strict gun control laws? Do they have better mental health resources? I think our country is so flawed (I know I am being broad and vague, as is the myriad ways in which our country is indeed flawed) that we will never see an end to this in our lifetime. For hundreds of years its been ingrained into people that they NEED guns and SHOULD have guns and the constitution says so...so why would they willingly change their minds? If anything, mass shootings only prove to them that they need guns for protection.
Exactly. I hate to say anything is hopeless, but I don't see any hope for it getting better.
The constitution was written a million years ago, when people lived in wild open plains, there wasn't much of an organized police force like there is today, and yeah, you needed your musket to protect your property and family.
Times have changed, our country has evolved immensely, but we are still upholding an amendment that is antiquated in this day and age.
I am not saying the 2nd Amendment should be repealed, but it needs to be changed to bring it into this milenumium.
But it won't be.
|
| Posted 11/7/17 9:42 AM |
| |
|
MrsT809
LIF Adult
Member since 9/09 12167 total posts
Name:
|
Re: That gun topic
Posted by mommy2B3
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by LuckyStar
Posted by evrythng4areason
Additionally, 15,085 people died as a result of guns in 2016.
More than 64,000 people died from drug overdoses.
Someone chooses to take drugs. No one chooses to get killed at church. No one chooses to send their child to school and not have them come home.
I'm not saying a drug problem doesn't exist, it does, but these are two issues that aren't even remotely similar.
But sadly, nothing is going to change anytime soon when the president says- Gun control would have left 100's more dead in Texas.
But he’s possibly right ((can’t believe I said that)). The fact is, in Texas cops are not able to get to most situations in a timely fashion. A trained civilian was able to shoot the actual shooter and the lunatic dropped his gun and fled town. It’s the reason I now have a concealed carry permit, and you will find me at a shooting range every month to keep my wits about me.
Personally, the Air Force let us down in this scenario, and it’s absolutely disgusting and there needs to be better systems in place for bureaucratic “errors”.
But this guy didn't need an AR15 to take the shooter down. I believe he did use that or something similar to what the shooter had but he easily could have taken him down with something else. If the shooter didn't have an AR 15 how many would he have shot before being taken down? I dont personally know anyone who wants all guns taken away but i don't see the reason any private citizen needs a semiautomatic weapon, high capacity magazine, our armour piercing bullets. Things are going in the wrong direction in this issue and we need better laws and better execution of the laws we have.
|
| Posted 11/7/17 9:57 AM |
| |
|
NervousNell
Just another chapter in life..
Member since 11/09 54921 total posts
Name:
..being a mommy and being a wife!
|
Re: That gun topic
Posted by MrsT809
Posted by mommy2B3
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by LuckyStar
Posted by evrythng4areason
Additionally, 15,085 people died as a result of guns in 2016.
More than 64,000 people died from drug overdoses.
Someone chooses to take drugs. No one chooses to get killed at church. No one chooses to send their child to school and not have them come home.
I'm not saying a drug problem doesn't exist, it does, but these are two issues that aren't even remotely similar.
But sadly, nothing is going to change anytime soon when the president says- Gun control would have left 100's more dead in Texas.
But he’s possibly right ((can’t believe I said that)). The fact is, in Texas cops are not able to get to most situations in a timely fashion. A trained civilian was able to shoot the actual shooter and the lunatic dropped his gun and fled town. It’s the reason I now have a concealed carry permit, and you will find me at a shooting range every month to keep my wits about me.
Personally, the Air Force let us down in this scenario, and it’s absolutely disgusting and there needs to be better systems in place for bureaucratic “errors”.
But this guy didn't need an AR15 to take the shooter down. I believe he did use that or something similar to what the shooter had but he easily could have taken him down with something else. If the shooter didn't have an AR 15 how many would he have shot before being taken down? I dont personally know anyone who wants all guns taken away but i don't see the reason any private citizen needs a semiautomatic weapon, high capacity magazine, our armour piercing bullets. Things are going in the wrong direction in this issue and we need better laws and better execution of the laws we have.
Exactly. There is NO excuse and NO reason for a private citizen to own a gun like that. None.
I want to hear one legitimate reason to own a gun and ammo like that.
And I don't want to hear sport. I enjoy it.
Go take up golf.
|
| Posted 11/7/17 9:59 AM |
| |
|
mommy2B3
2 boys 2 girls!!!!
Member since 7/08 3324 total posts
Name:
M
|
Re: That gun topic
Posted by NervousNell
But he’s possibly right ((can’t believe I said that)). The fact is, in Texas cops are not able to get to most situations in a timely fashion. A trained civilian was able to shoot the actual shooter and the lunatic dropped his gun and fled town. It’s the reason I now have a concealed carry permit, and you will find me at a shooting range every month to keep my wits about me.
Personally, the Air Force let us down in this scenario, and it’s absolutely disgusting and there needs to be better systems in place for bureaucratic “errors”.
But this guy didn't need an AR15 to take the shooter down. I believe he did use that or something similar to what the shooter had but he easily could have taken him down with something else. If the shooter didn't have an AR 15 how many would he have shot before being taken down? I dont personally know anyone who wants all guns taken away but i don't see the reason any private citizen needs a semiautomatic weapon, high capacity magazine, our armour piercing bullets. Things are going in the wrong direction in this issue and we need better laws and better execution of the laws we have.
Exactly. There is NO excuse and NO reason for a private citizen to own a gun like that. None.
I want to hear one legitimate reason to own a gun and ammo like that.
And I don't want to hear sport. I enjoy it.
Go take up golf.
That I completely agree with. While I enjoy shooting at the range, I would never want/need a semi-auto.
But I think the civilian used an AR15 bc he heard the gun shots in the church ((a trained ear will know the difference)) and didn’t want to be out powered. So that is the only reason I can understand civilians owning guns like that, bc unfortunately people arent shooting up places with glocks, it’s usually semi-auto. However, I think that is the exact reason we need a ban on semi-autos, bc we are just allowing crazy people to up the anti.
ETA: cut out some of the above since it was so long, hopefully I didn’t mess it up 
Message edited 11/7/2017 10:17:58 AM.
|
| Posted 11/7/17 10:16 AM |
| |
|
SecretlyTTC14
LIF Adult
Member since 12/13 1770 total posts
Name:
B
|
Re: That gun topic
I think there is a lot of confusion here regarding the definition of semi-auto.
semi-auto means one trigger pull = one bullet
If you go to the range with a hunting rifle or a pistol, chances are it's probably semi-auto.
They cannot ban "assault rifles" without banning hunting rifles. It's the accessories and appearance that make it what we know as an "assault rifle". For example: a high powered scope, flash suppressor, collapsible stock, high capacity magazines, etc. A lot of these accessories are already illegal or regulated.
I'm tired of nothing being done too, but saying there is no reason for the average citizen to own a semi-auto rifle is just ignorant because that describes almost all hunting rifles. I think the ignorance surrounding basic gun knowledge is the reason they cannot get any laws passed. Most law-makers have never even used a gun. They use terms that don't really have any significance because real military weapons are already illegal.
Image Attachment(s):
Message edited 11/7/2017 10:57:37 AM.
|
| Posted 11/7/17 10:45 AM |
| |
|
mommy2B3
2 boys 2 girls!!!!
Member since 7/08 3324 total posts
Name:
M
|
Re: That gun topic
Posted by SecretlyTTC14
I think there is a lot of confusion here regarding the definition of semi-auto.
semi-auto means one trigger pull = one bullet
If you go to the range with a hunting rifle or a pistol, chances are it's probably semi-auto.
They cannot ban "assault rifles" without banning hunting rifles. It's the accessories and appearance that make it what we know as an "assault rifle". For example: a high powered scope, flash suppressor, collapsible stock, high capacity magazines, etc. A lot of these accessories are already illegal or regulated.
I'm tired of nothing being done too, but saying there is no reason for the average citizen to own a semi-auto rifle is just ignorant because that describes almost all hunting rifles. I think the ignorance surrounding basic gun knowledge is the reason they cannot get any laws passed. Most law-makers have never even used a gun. They use terms that don't really have any significance because real military weapons are already illegal.
My problem with this is the fact that these assault rifles have magazines which gives you 30+ Chances to make your kill. I don’t hunt, and I honestly don’t understand the intrigue of taking anyone/anything’s life, so yes I’m totally ignorant with hunting knowledge. So maybe the gun itself isn’t the problem, maybe it’s the magazine in and of itself that I don’t agree with. If you can’t make your hunting kill in 2-3 shots, then it’s possible hunting isn’t your forte (General you, not actually you). I’m ok with ammo being reloaded, I’m not ok with continued shots without reload.
|
| Posted 11/7/17 11:13 AM |
| |
|
MsSissy
xoxoxo
Member since 3/07 39159 total posts
Name:
|
Re: That gun topic
Posted by SecretlyTTC14
They cannot ban "assault rifles" without banning hunting rifles. It's the accessories and appearance that make it what we know as an "assault rifle". For example: a high powered scope, flash suppressor, collapsible stock, high capacity magazines, etc. A lot of these accessories are already illegal or regulated.
Is this where the bump stock comes into play? That they were talking about banning after the Vegas massacre?
|
| Posted 11/7/17 11:14 AM |
| |
|
alli3131
Peanut is here!!!!!!
Member since 5/09 18388 total posts
Name:
Allison
|
Re: That gun topic
Posted by mrsrainbow
I think once the government stops being a patsy of the NRA and gunmakers, and taking money to prevent gun reform, we will never be able to take control of the situation and stop these things from occurring.
On a side note - why is that we rarely hear of mass shootings in other countries? Do they have strict gun control laws? Do they have better mental health resources? I think our country is so flawed (I know I am being broad and vague, as is the myriad ways in which our country is indeed flawed) that we will never see an end to this in our lifetime. For hundreds of years its been ingrained into people that they NEED guns and SHOULD have guns and the constitution says so...so why would they willingly change their minds? If anything, mass shootings only prove to them that they need guns for protection.
As for other countries yes there laws are very different. Australia had a mass shooting in Tasmania and immediately changed their gun laws. There were no if ands or buts....they just did it. Because of it their gun violence ce is low and I do not believe they have had another mass shooting.
|
| Posted 11/7/17 11:15 AM |
| |
|
NervousNell
Just another chapter in life..
Member since 11/09 54921 total posts
Name:
..being a mommy and being a wife!
|
Re: That gun topic
Posted by alli3131
Posted by mrsrainbow
I think once the government stops being a patsy of the NRA and gunmakers, and taking money to prevent gun reform, we will never be able to take control of the situation and stop these things from occurring.
On a side note - why is that we rarely hear of mass shootings in other countries? Do they have strict gun control laws? Do they have better mental health resources? I think our country is so flawed (I know I am being broad and vague, as is the myriad ways in which our country is indeed flawed) that we will never see an end to this in our lifetime. For hundreds of years its been ingrained into people that they NEED guns and SHOULD have guns and the constitution says so...so why would they willingly change their minds? If anything, mass shootings only prove to them that they need guns for protection.
As for other countries yes there laws are very different. Australia had a mass shooting in Tasmania and immediately changed their gun laws. There were no if ands or buts....they just did it. Because of it their gun violence ce is low and I do not believe they have had another mass shooting.
Interesting.
So all these excuses that we make here about how we just CAN'T do it because, because, because.... didn't seem to come in to play in Australia.
Interesting.
They can do it- but we can't.
Because.... hunting?
Because.... semantics?
Because... ignorance of how guns work?
|
| Posted 11/7/17 11:20 AM |
| |
|
SecretlyTTC14
LIF Adult
Member since 12/13 1770 total posts
Name:
B
|
Re: That gun topic
Posted by mommy2B3
Posted by SecretlyTTC14
I think there is a lot of confusion here regarding the definition of semi-auto.
semi-auto means one trigger pull = one bullet
If you go to the range with a hunting rifle or a pistol, chances are it's probably semi-auto.
They cannot ban "assault rifles" without banning hunting rifles. It's the accessories and appearance that make it what we know as an "assault rifle". For example: a high powered scope, flash suppressor, collapsible stock, high capacity magazines, etc. A lot of these accessories are already illegal or regulated.
I'm tired of nothing being done too, but saying there is no reason for the average citizen to own a semi-auto rifle is just ignorant because that describes almost all hunting rifles. I think the ignorance surrounding basic gun knowledge is the reason they cannot get any laws passed. Most law-makers have never even used a gun. They use terms that don't really have any significance because real military weapons are already illegal.
My problem with this is the fact that these assault rifles have magazines which gives you 30+ Chances to make your kill. I don’t hunt, and I honestly don’t understand the intrigue of taking anyone/anything’s life, so yes I’m totally ignorant with hunting knowledge. So maybe the gun itself isn’t the problem, maybe it’s the magazine in and of itself that I don’t agree with. If you can’t make your hunting kill in 2-3 shots, then it’s possible hunting isn’t your forte (General you, not actually you). I’m ok with ammo being reloaded, I’m not ok with continued shots without reload.
High capacity mags were federally outlawed at one point. I think the ban expired at some point though. They are still illegal in some states, i know they are illegal in NY. So asking our law makers to propose a federal law making high capacity clips illegal would be a step in the right direction.
The point of my post was to point out that people demand gun control without knowing specifics. If we ask them to ban "assault rifles" that is pointless and we go ignored. The general public needs to be informed so we can demand real action. So when we demand stricter laws, they make sense and we cannot be called ignorant.
|
| Posted 11/7/17 11:27 AM |
| |
|
SecretlyTTC14
LIF Adult
Member since 12/13 1770 total posts
Name:
B
|
Re: That gun topic
Posted by NervousNell
Posted by alli3131
Posted by mrsrainbow
I think once the government stops being a patsy of the NRA and gunmakers, and taking money to prevent gun reform, we will never be able to take control of the situation and stop these things from occurring.
On a side note - why is that we rarely hear of mass shootings in other countries? Do they have strict gun control laws? Do they have better mental health resources? I think our country is so flawed (I know I am being broad and vague, as is the myriad ways in which our country is indeed flawed) that we will never see an end to this in our lifetime. For hundreds of years its been ingrained into people that they NEED guns and SHOULD have guns and the constitution says so...so why would they willingly change their minds? If anything, mass shootings only prove to them that they need guns for protection.
As for other countries yes there laws are very different. Australia had a mass shooting in Tasmania and immediately changed their gun laws. There were no if ands or buts....they just did it. Because of it their gun violence ce is low and I do not believe they have had another mass shooting.
Interesting.
So all these excuses that we make here about how we just CAN'T do it because, because, because.... didn't seem to come in to play in Australia.
Interesting.
They can do it- but we can't.
Because.... hunting?
Because.... semantics?
Because... ignorance of how guns work?
As a previous poster pointed out, how do you propose to take away the 3 million legal guns that are already out there? Consider how many more illegal ones there are too. You think we see violence now? Those crazy guys stockpiling guns will give them out to all their friends and family and form their own crazy militias. It would be chaos and people would die. They have the constitution on their side. We need real solutions.
Saying Australia did it does nothing. They bought back what 600k guns? I don't know the actual figure, but it's no where near the amount of guns in the United States. Also, the cost of these guns are astronomical. Some of them are thousands a piece. How is the government going to afford to buy those back? You think these guys are going to take pennies on the dollar for the government to take their guns?
I am on your side. I am terrified sending my kid to school, going to the movies, going to the mall. I hate thinking the worst can happen. Our laws are a joke. We need to work towards solutions that are plausible.
ETA: Not to mention how many law enforcement agencies in the mid-west and south that would never abide by a outright gun ban. Whose going to enforce it? Our military? A lot of those guys are avid gun collectors themselves. It will never happen. Let's start demanding things we can actually accomplish.
Message edited 11/7/2017 12:18:46 PM.
|
| Posted 11/7/17 11:45 AM |
| |
|
Pumpkin1
LIF Adult
Member since 12/05 3715 total posts
Name:
|
Re: That gun topic
Posted by SecretlyTTC14
I think there is a lot of confusion here regarding the definition of semi-auto.
semi-auto means one trigger pull = one bullet
If you go to the range with a hunting rifle or a pistol, chances are it's probably semi-auto.
They cannot ban "assault rifles" without banning hunting rifles. It's the accessories and appearance that make it what we know as an "assault rifle". For example: a high powered scope, flash suppressor, collapsible stock, high capacity magazines, etc. A lot of these accessories are already illegal or regulated.
I'm tired of nothing being done too, but saying there is no reason for the average citizen to own a semi-auto rifle is just ignorant because that describes almost all hunting rifles. I think the ignorance surrounding basic gun knowledge is the reason they cannot get any laws passed. Most law-makers have never even used a gun. They use terms that don't really have any significance because real military weapons are already illegal.
Word choice is important, so I'm glad you edited your earlier post because many people will stop reading as soon as you call them ignorant.
Message edited 11/7/2017 12:30:54 PM.
|
| Posted 11/7/17 12:29 PM |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 |
