|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
He's still banging the Swiss gun law drum even though we had several Swiss telling him that his understanding of Swiss gun laws are completely wrong, and basically the opposite of American gun laws. Also the usual blather about "don't take all our guns", and "them Europeans blah blah blah" "the left yadda yadda yadda". He's not trying very hard at all I would say, as he is basically regurgiting the same vomit on autopilot as several months previously. It's easy post a lot when you are just posting the same crap over and over again by responding to the same strawman over and over again.
|
Every time I look into this thread and read the "discussion" here I wonder why it's not closed yet.
|
Every here and there you get a few posts that are researched and informative
|
On July 03 2018 22:30 PoulsenB wrote:
Every time I look into this thread and read the "discussion" here I wonder why it's not closed yet.
It's a very meta mirroring of the US guns debate. For that, I think it's very informative to the reader that thinks "nothing has been done" and asks why.
|
This thread does not mirror any gun debate I have been part of in my life. But it does show how bringing the public discussion to this fevered pitch kills the entire discussion. And if the goal is to maintain the status quo, it is effective at achieving that goal.
|
On July 03 2018 22:30 PoulsenB wrote:
Every time I look into this thread and read the "discussion" here I wonder why it's not closed yet.
because it's more of a quarantine thread to keep the topic away from better threads.
and ofc moderating the discussion sufficiently to ensure quality is more work than the mods want to put in. (and would exclude some of the sentiments that have the most political effect - the unreasonable ones)
quality discussions never last that long anyways; because they tend to rapidly converge on a conclusion. as a result bad discussions tend to dominate because they can go on and on.
|
On July 03 2018 23:11 Plansix wrote:
This thread does not mirror any gun debate I have been part of in my life. But it does show how bringing the public discussion to this fevered pitch kills the entire discussion. And if the goal is to maintain the status quo, it is effective at achieving that goal.
So you’re basically agreeing with me, but assigning blame do “fevered pitch” among others.
I don’t expect much agreement on which side is more responsible for the deplorable state of the debate.
|
On July 03 2018 23:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 23:11 Plansix wrote:
This thread does not mirror any gun debate I have been part of in my life. But it does show how bringing the public discussion to this fevered pitch kills the entire discussion. And if the goal is to maintain the status quo, it is effective at achieving that goal. So you’re basically agreeing with me, but assigning blame do “fevered pitch” among others. I don’t expect much agreement on which side is more responsible for the deplorable state of the debate.
I always find it amusing that you put me on the super gun control side, when it couldn’t be farther from the truth. But then again, your goal in this debate isn’t about accurately representing the gun control advocates real positions on the topic.
|
On July 03 2018 23:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 23:38 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 23:11 Plansix wrote:
This thread does not mirror any gun debate I have been part of in my life. But it does show how bringing the public discussion to this fevered pitch kills the entire discussion. And if the goal is to maintain the status quo, it is effective at achieving that goal. So you’re basically agreeing with me, but assigning blame do “fevered pitch” among others. I don’t expect much agreement on which side is more responsible for the deplorable state of the debate. I always find it amusing that you put me on the super gun control side, when it couldn’t be farther from the truth. But then again, your goal in this debate isn’t about accurately representing the gun control advocates real positions on the topic.
Likewise, you misrepresent other peoples views and present yourself as the aggrieved party at regular intervals. What you’re vocal about is available for all the thread to read. The falsehood that I accuse you personally of being on “super gun control” is also in the thread archives, so I have very little to fear.
|
On July 03 2018 23:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 23:53 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 23:38 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 23:11 Plansix wrote:
This thread does not mirror any gun debate I have been part of in my life. But it does show how bringing the public discussion to this fevered pitch kills the entire discussion. And if the goal is to maintain the status quo, it is effective at achieving that goal. So you’re basically agreeing with me, but assigning blame do “fevered pitch” among others. I don’t expect much agreement on which side is more responsible for the deplorable state of the debate. I always find it amusing that you put me on the super gun control side, when it couldn’t be farther from the truth. But then again, your goal in this debate isn’t about accurately representing the gun control advocates real positions on the topic. Likewise, you misrepresent other peoples views and present yourself as the aggrieved party at regular intervals. What you’re vocal about is available for all the thread to read. The falsehood that I accuse you personally of being on “super gun control” is also in the thread archives, so I have very little to fear.
Why don’t you just tell me what you feel my views are and I’ll correct any misconceptions? I’ll be super polite about it. Lets just clear this up once and for all.
|
On July 04 2018 00:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 23:57 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 23:53 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 23:38 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 23:11 Plansix wrote:
This thread does not mirror any gun debate I have been part of in my life. But it does show how bringing the public discussion to this fevered pitch kills the entire discussion. And if the goal is to maintain the status quo, it is effective at achieving that goal. So you’re basically agreeing with me, but assigning blame do “fevered pitch” among others. I don’t expect much agreement on which side is more responsible for the deplorable state of the debate. I always find it amusing that you put me on the super gun control side, when it couldn’t be farther from the truth. But then again, your goal in this debate isn’t about accurately representing the gun control advocates real positions on the topic. Likewise, you misrepresent other peoples views and present yourself as the aggrieved party at regular intervals. What you’re vocal about is available for all the thread to read. The falsehood that I accuse you personally of being on “super gun control” is also in the thread archives, so I have very little to fear. Why don’t you just tell me what you feel my views are and I’ll correct any misconceptions? I’ll be super polite about it. Lets just clear this up once and for all.
No, I think the past pages of the thread are far more illuminating than any view rehash will be. There’s hundreds of pages for any curious soul. I don’t put much stake into making the debate about debating personalities in a lull. I’m just going to tell you the feeling is mutual after you single me out for misconduct.
|
On July 04 2018 00:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 00:03 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 23:57 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 23:53 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 23:38 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 23:11 Plansix wrote:
This thread does not mirror any gun debate I have been part of in my life. But it does show how bringing the public discussion to this fevered pitch kills the entire discussion. And if the goal is to maintain the status quo, it is effective at achieving that goal. So you’re basically agreeing with me, but assigning blame do “fevered pitch” among others. I don’t expect much agreement on which side is more responsible for the deplorable state of the debate. I always find it amusing that you put me on the super gun control side, when it couldn’t be farther from the truth. But then again, your goal in this debate isn’t about accurately representing the gun control advocates real positions on the topic. Likewise, you misrepresent other peoples views and present yourself as the aggrieved party at regular intervals. What you’re vocal about is available for all the thread to read. The falsehood that I accuse you personally of being on “super gun control” is also in the thread archives, so I have very little to fear. Why don’t you just tell me what you feel my views are and I’ll correct any misconceptions? I’ll be super polite about it. Lets just clear this up once and for all. No, I think the past pages of the thread are far more illuminating than any view rehash will be. There’s hundreds of pages for any curious soul. I don’t put much stake into making the debate about debating personalities in a lull. I’m just going to tell you the feeling is mutual after you single me out for misconduct.
And thus we come to the root of the problem, no one is willing to put themselves into a position where they could be proven wrong.
To clear it up:
I support gun ownership for any type of fire arm. I feel it would be a good idea for hand gun ownership to be gated slightly given the statistics on how often those guns lead to injury and are used for suicide. But that feeling is not a deal breaker for any law.
I do not give a shit about assault rifles/long guns or whatever people want to call them. I support a state’s right to regulate those guns as they see fit.
I want robust background checks across the US with a well funded and supported database.
I want ability for law enforcement and family to seek judicial approval to seize fire arms if they can prove the person is a risk.
I would like 6 week training courses for anyone who wants to take them and for that to factor into their ability to obtain a license to carry.
|
On July 04 2018 00:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 00:46 Danglars wrote:On July 04 2018 00:03 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 23:57 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 23:53 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 23:38 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 23:11 Plansix wrote:
This thread does not mirror any gun debate I have been part of in my life. But it does show how bringing the public discussion to this fevered pitch kills the entire discussion. And if the goal is to maintain the status quo, it is effective at achieving that goal. So you’re basically agreeing with me, but assigning blame do “fevered pitch” among others. I don’t expect much agreement on which side is more responsible for the deplorable state of the debate. I always find it amusing that you put me on the super gun control side, when it couldn’t be farther from the truth. But then again, your goal in this debate isn’t about accurately representing the gun control advocates real positions on the topic. Likewise, you misrepresent other peoples views and present yourself as the aggrieved party at regular intervals. What you’re vocal about is available for all the thread to read. The falsehood that I accuse you personally of being on “super gun control” is also in the thread archives, so I have very little to fear. Why don’t you just tell me what you feel my views are and I’ll correct any misconceptions? I’ll be super polite about it. Lets just clear this up once and for all. No, I think the past pages of the thread are far more illuminating than any view rehash will be. There’s hundreds of pages for any curious soul. I don’t put much stake into making the debate about debating personalities in a lull. I’m just going to tell you the feeling is mutual after you single me out for misconduct. And thus we come to the root of the problem, no one is willing to put themselves into a position where they could be proven wrong. To clear it up: I support gun ownership for any type of fire arm. I feel it would be a good idea for hand gun ownership to be gated slightly given the statistics on how often those guns lead to injury and are used for suicide. But that feeling is not a deal breaker for any law. I do not give a shit about assault rifles/long guns or whatever people want to call them. I support a state’s right to regulate those guns as they see fit. I want robust background checks across the US with a well funded and supported database. I want ability for law enforcement and family to seek judicial approval to seize fire arms if they can prove the person is a risk. I would like 6 week training courses for anyone who wants to take them and for that to factor into their ability to obtain a license to carry.
I imagine you gotta put something in there to deal with interstate gun running (like targeting the retailers/suppliers/manufacturers rather than the runners) otherwise you get something like the opiate epidemic where you had some small town of thousands getting enough opiates for a million people or whatever it was.
Also "class hours" tells people what you mean better than a unit of measure like "weeks"
Otherwise there's nothing too far out there on that list imo. I Imagine it nets out to a win but surely it gets there by dramatically lowering deaths in some states and increasing them in others.
|
On July 04 2018 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 00:57 Plansix wrote:On July 04 2018 00:46 Danglars wrote:On July 04 2018 00:03 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 23:57 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 23:53 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 23:38 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 23:11 Plansix wrote:
This thread does not mirror any gun debate I have been part of in my life. But it does show how bringing the public discussion to this fevered pitch kills the entire discussion. And if the goal is to maintain the status quo, it is effective at achieving that goal. So you’re basically agreeing with me, but assigning blame do “fevered pitch” among others. I don’t expect much agreement on which side is more responsible for the deplorable state of the debate. I always find it amusing that you put me on the super gun control side, when it couldn’t be farther from the truth. But then again, your goal in this debate isn’t about accurately representing the gun control advocates real positions on the topic. Likewise, you misrepresent other peoples views and present yourself as the aggrieved party at regular intervals. What you’re vocal about is available for all the thread to read. The falsehood that I accuse you personally of being on “super gun control” is also in the thread archives, so I have very little to fear. Why don’t you just tell me what you feel my views are and I’ll correct any misconceptions? I’ll be super polite about it. Lets just clear this up once and for all. No, I think the past pages of the thread are far more illuminating than any view rehash will be. There’s hundreds of pages for any curious soul. I don’t put much stake into making the debate about debating personalities in a lull. I’m just going to tell you the feeling is mutual after you single me out for misconduct. And thus we come to the root of the problem, no one is willing to put themselves into a position where they could be proven wrong. To clear it up: I support gun ownership for any type of fire arm. I feel it would be a good idea for hand gun ownership to be gated slightly given the statistics on how often those guns lead to injury and are used for suicide. But that feeling is not a deal breaker for any law. I do not give a shit about assault rifles/long guns or whatever people want to call them. I support a state’s right to regulate those guns as they see fit. I want robust background checks across the US with a well funded and supported database. I want ability for law enforcement and family to seek judicial approval to seize fire arms if they can prove the person is a risk. I would like 6 week training courses for anyone who wants to take them and for that to factor into their ability to obtain a license to carry. I imagine you gotta put something in there to deal with interstate gun running (like targeting the retailers/suppliers/manufacturers rather than the runners) otherwise you get something like the opiate epidemic where you had some small town of thousands getting enough opiates for a million people or whatever it was. Also "class hours" tells people what you mean better than a unit of measure like "weeks" Otherwise there's nothing too far out there on that list imo. I Imagine it nets out to a win but surely it gets there by dramatically lowering deaths in some states and increasing them in others.
Robust background checks and the ability to seize fire arms when someone is a risk have lowers gun related deaths and injuries by around 50% in the states they were recently implemented in. I would like person to person sales to have some sort of recording or reporting requirement to the government, but I know people hate that idea. But gun shows should also be better regulated as well.
The classes are just something to help people who want to own guns and receive professional training. And wouldn’t be linked to the gun industry itself, which is the source of a lot of problems in the US. I put 6 weeks because that is what most people are interested in seeing, how long they will have to attend these classes.
|
On July 04 2018 02:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 00:57 Plansix wrote:On July 04 2018 00:46 Danglars wrote:On July 04 2018 00:03 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 23:57 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 23:53 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 23:38 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 23:11 Plansix wrote:
This thread does not mirror any gun debate I have been part of in my life. But it does show how bringing the public discussion to this fevered pitch kills the entire discussion. And if the goal is to maintain the status quo, it is effective at achieving that goal. So you’re basically agreeing with me, but assigning blame do “fevered pitch” among others. I don’t expect much agreement on which side is more responsible for the deplorable state of the debate. I always find it amusing that you put me on the super gun control side, when it couldn’t be farther from the truth. But then again, your goal in this debate isn’t about accurately representing the gun control advocates real positions on the topic. Likewise, you misrepresent other peoples views and present yourself as the aggrieved party at regular intervals. What you’re vocal about is available for all the thread to read. The falsehood that I accuse you personally of being on “super gun control” is also in the thread archives, so I have very little to fear. Why don’t you just tell me what you feel my views are and I’ll correct any misconceptions? I’ll be super polite about it. Lets just clear this up once and for all. No, I think the past pages of the thread are far more illuminating than any view rehash will be. There’s hundreds of pages for any curious soul. I don’t put much stake into making the debate about debating personalities in a lull. I’m just going to tell you the feeling is mutual after you single me out for misconduct. And thus we come to the root of the problem, no one is willing to put themselves into a position where they could be proven wrong. To clear it up: I support gun ownership for any type of fire arm. I feel it would be a good idea for hand gun ownership to be gated slightly given the statistics on how often those guns lead to injury and are used for suicide. But that feeling is not a deal breaker for any law. I do not give a shit about assault rifles/long guns or whatever people want to call them. I support a state’s right to regulate those guns as they see fit. I want robust background checks across the US with a well funded and supported database. I want ability for law enforcement and family to seek judicial approval to seize fire arms if they can prove the person is a risk. I would like 6 week training courses for anyone who wants to take them and for that to factor into their ability to obtain a license to carry. I imagine you gotta put something in there to deal with interstate gun running (like targeting the retailers/suppliers/manufacturers rather than the runners) otherwise you get something like the opiate epidemic where you had some small town of thousands getting enough opiates for a million people or whatever it was. Also "class hours" tells people what you mean better than a unit of measure like "weeks" Otherwise there's nothing too far out there on that list imo. I Imagine it nets out to a win but surely it gets there by dramatically lowering deaths in some states and increasing them in others. Robust background checks and the ability to seize fire arms when someone is a risk have lowers gun related deaths and injuries by around 50% in the states they were recently implemented in. I would like person to person sales to have some sort of recording or reporting requirement to the government, but I know people hate that idea. But gun shows should also be better regulated as well. The classes are just something to help people who want to own guns and receive professional training. And wouldn’t be linked to the gun industry itself, which is the source of a lot of problems in the US. I put 6 weeks because that is what most people are interested in seeing, how long they will have to attend these classes.
I don't trust the police to do the part about seizing firearms, and the industry should pay for the education (by way of a tax) but other than that it's pretty reasonable as far as moderate gun reform goes imo.
|
On July 04 2018 03:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 02:20 Plansix wrote:On July 04 2018 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 00:57 Plansix wrote:On July 04 2018 00:46 Danglars wrote:On July 04 2018 00:03 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 23:57 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 23:53 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 23:38 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 23:11 Plansix wrote:
This thread does not mirror any gun debate I have been part of in my life. But it does show how bringing the public discussion to this fevered pitch kills the entire discussion. And if the goal is to maintain the status quo, it is effective at achieving that goal. So you’re basically agreeing with me, but assigning blame do “fevered pitch” among others. I don’t expect much agreement on which side is more responsible for the deplorable state of the debate. I always find it amusing that you put me on the super gun control side, when it couldn’t be farther from the truth. But then again, your goal in this debate isn’t about accurately representing the gun control advocates real positions on the topic. Likewise, you misrepresent other peoples views and present yourself as the aggrieved party at regular intervals. What you’re vocal about is available for all the thread to read. The falsehood that I accuse you personally of being on “super gun control” is also in the thread archives, so I have very little to fear. Why don’t you just tell me what you feel my views are and I’ll correct any misconceptions? I’ll be super polite about it. Lets just clear this up once and for all. No, I think the past pages of the thread are far more illuminating than any view rehash will be. There’s hundreds of pages for any curious soul. I don’t put much stake into making the debate about debating personalities in a lull. I’m just going to tell you the feeling is mutual after you single me out for misconduct. And thus we come to the root of the problem, no one is willing to put themselves into a position where they could be proven wrong. To clear it up: I support gun ownership for any type of fire arm. I feel it would be a good idea for hand gun ownership to be gated slightly given the statistics on how often those guns lead to injury and are used for suicide. But that feeling is not a deal breaker for any law. I do not give a shit about assault rifles/long guns or whatever people want to call them. I support a state’s right to regulate those guns as they see fit. I want robust background checks across the US with a well funded and supported database. I want ability for law enforcement and family to seek judicial approval to seize fire arms if they can prove the person is a risk. I would like 6 week training courses for anyone who wants to take them and for that to factor into their ability to obtain a license to carry. I imagine you gotta put something in there to deal with interstate gun running (like targeting the retailers/suppliers/manufacturers rather than the runners) otherwise you get something like the opiate epidemic where you had some small town of thousands getting enough opiates for a million people or whatever it was. Also "class hours" tells people what you mean better than a unit of measure like "weeks" Otherwise there's nothing too far out there on that list imo. I Imagine it nets out to a win but surely it gets there by dramatically lowering deaths in some states and increasing them in others. Robust background checks and the ability to seize fire arms when someone is a risk have lowers gun related deaths and injuries by around 50% in the states they were recently implemented in. I would like person to person sales to have some sort of recording or reporting requirement to the government, but I know people hate that idea. But gun shows should also be better regulated as well. The classes are just something to help people who want to own guns and receive professional training. And wouldn’t be linked to the gun industry itself, which is the source of a lot of problems in the US. I put 6 weeks because that is what most people are interested in seeing, how long they will have to attend these classes. I don't trust the police to do the part about seizing firearms, and the industry should pay for the education (by way of a tax) but other than that it's pretty reasonable as far as moderate gun reform goes imo.
The laws already exist in some states. They don’t seize the fire arms forever. They petition the court for an order to hold the fire arms and intervene if the person shows signs of being a risk. It isn’t just for the police either. Family can do it if an elderly relative to impaired to own fire arms safely. It is a system with due process that allows people to intervene before a crime or accident takes place.
|
On July 04 2018 03:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 03:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 02:20 Plansix wrote:On July 04 2018 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 04 2018 00:57 Plansix wrote:On July 04 2018 00:46 Danglars wrote:On July 04 2018 00:03 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 23:57 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 23:53 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 23:38 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
So you’re basically agreeing with me, but assigning blame do “fevered pitch” among others.
I don’t expect much agreement on which side is more responsible for the deplorable state of the debate. I always find it amusing that you put me on the super gun control side, when it couldn’t be farther from the truth. But then again, your goal in this debate isn’t about accurately representing the gun control advocates real positions on the topic. Likewise, you misrepresent other peoples views and present yourself as the aggrieved party at regular intervals. What you’re vocal about is available for all the thread to read. The falsehood that I accuse you personally of being on “super gun control” is also in the thread archives, so I have very little to fear. Why don’t you just tell me what you feel my views are and I’ll correct any misconceptions? I’ll be super polite about it. Lets just clear this up once and for all. No, I think the past pages of the thread are far more illuminating than any view rehash will be. There’s hundreds of pages for any curious soul. I don’t put much stake into making the debate about debating personalities in a lull. I’m just going to tell you the feeling is mutual after you single me out for misconduct. And thus we come to the root of the problem, no one is willing to put themselves into a position where they could be proven wrong. To clear it up: I support gun ownership for any type of fire arm. I feel it would be a good idea for hand gun ownership to be gated slightly given the statistics on how often those guns lead to injury and are used for suicide. But that feeling is not a deal breaker for any law. I do not give a shit about assault rifles/long guns or whatever people want to call them. I support a state’s right to regulate those guns as they see fit. I want robust background checks across the US with a well funded and supported database. I want ability for law enforcement and family to seek judicial approval to seize fire arms if they can prove the person is a risk. I would like 6 week training courses for anyone who wants to take them and for that to factor into their ability to obtain a license to carry. I imagine you gotta put something in there to deal with interstate gun running (like targeting the retailers/suppliers/manufacturers rather than the runners) otherwise you get something like the opiate epidemic where you had some small town of thousands getting enough opiates for a million people or whatever it was. Also "class hours" tells people what you mean better than a unit of measure like "weeks" Otherwise there's nothing too far out there on that list imo. I Imagine it nets out to a win but surely it gets there by dramatically lowering deaths in some states and increasing them in others. Robust background checks and the ability to seize fire arms when someone is a risk have lowers gun related deaths and injuries by around 50% in the states they were recently implemented in. I would like person to person sales to have some sort of recording or reporting requirement to the government, but I know people hate that idea. But gun shows should also be better regulated as well. The classes are just something to help people who want to own guns and receive professional training. And wouldn’t be linked to the gun industry itself, which is the source of a lot of problems in the US. I put 6 weeks because that is what most people are interested in seeing, how long they will have to attend these classes. I don't trust the police to do the part about seizing firearms, and the industry should pay for the education (by way of a tax) but other than that it's pretty reasonable as far as moderate gun reform goes imo. The laws already exist in some states. They don’t seize the fire arms forever. They petition the court for an order to hold the fire arms and intervene if the person shows signs of being a risk. It isn’t just for the police either. Family can do it if an elderly relative to impaired to own fire arms safely. It is a system with due process that allows people to intervene before a crime or accident takes place.
I know, I'm in one. What concerns me is the same police that can't interact with a Black man smoking on a sidewalk or on his cell phone in his back yard without killing him are now going to be tasked with taking guns they may or may not have from them because they've been deemed "a risk".
It's not the "they're gunna take mer guns" I'm worried about, it's their inability to interact with Black people without feeling threatened and harming us unnecessarily. Same goes for indigenous people and basically anyone not white or Asian.
|
On July 04 2018 00:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2018 00:46 Danglars wrote:On July 04 2018 00:03 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 23:57 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 23:53 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 23:38 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 23:11 Plansix wrote:
This thread does not mirror any gun debate I have been part of in my life. But it does show how bringing the public discussion to this fevered pitch kills the entire discussion. And if the goal is to maintain the status quo, it is effective at achieving that goal. So you’re basically agreeing with me, but assigning blame do “fevered pitch” among others. I don’t expect much agreement on which side is more responsible for the deplorable state of the debate. I always find it amusing that you put me on the super gun control side, when it couldn’t be farther from the truth. But then again, your goal in this debate isn’t about accurately representing the gun control advocates real positions on the topic. Likewise, you misrepresent other peoples views and present yourself as the aggrieved party at regular intervals. What you’re vocal about is available for all the thread to read. The falsehood that I accuse you personally of being on “super gun control” is also in the thread archives, so I have very little to fear. Why don’t you just tell me what you feel my views are and I’ll correct any misconceptions? I’ll be super polite about it. Lets just clear this up once and for all. No, I think the past pages of the thread are far more illuminating than any view rehash will be. There’s hundreds of pages for any curious soul. I don’t put much stake into making the debate about debating personalities in a lull. I’m just going to tell you the feeling is mutual after you single me out for misconduct. And thus we come to the root of the problem, no one is willing to put themselves into a position where they could be proven wrong. To clear it up: I support gun ownership for any type of fire arm. I feel it would be a good idea for hand gun ownership to be gated slightly given the statistics on how often those guns lead to injury and are used for suicide. But that feeling is not a deal breaker for any law. I do not give a shit about assault rifles/long guns or whatever people want to call them. I support a state’s right to regulate those guns as they see fit. I want robust background checks across the US with a well funded and supported database. I want ability for law enforcement and family to seek judicial approval to seize fire arms if they can prove the person is a risk. I would like 6 week training courses for anyone who wants to take them and for that to factor into their ability to obtain a license to carry.
So classes and education for anyone that wants to own a fire arm as a requirement, like driving a car? That I can get behind.
I might also add insurance for gun owners, so that when someone's gun is used erroneously the victim family will have recourse to collect money to pay for the damages caused by irresponsible gun ownership.
I would also say ban on assault rifles, the only logic for owning them is "they're cool." Ban anything that could end up like the vegas shooting, basically any high capacity mag of any sort. In the waffle house shooting, being forced to reload gave the hero an opening to act.
|
United States24801 Posts
Has an assault rifle ever been used in a crime by a civilian in the USA? I'm not aware of any cases.
|
On July 04 2018 10:54 micronesia wrote:
Has an assault rifle ever been used in a crime by a civilian in the USA? I'm not aware of any cases.
which definition of assault rifle are you using?
also the answer is assuredly yes anyways given the size of the US and if you're counting many years. so the question would be how many.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
