It's the Guns.

[shunyadragon]

strife is here already

may it not bother to knock on my door

Strife has always been here and will always be here, because of the fallible nature of humanity.

The current militaristic gun militia movement with millions of military weapons creates an environment of the potential gun violence, which at present is a growing reality with the proliferation of guns of all forms.

I go not advocate extreme forms of gun control, .but the current trend is devastating to American society.

 

[Thief]

Strife has always been here and will always be here, because of the fallible nature of humanity.

The current militaristic gun militia movement with millions of military weapons creates an environment of the potential gun violence, which at present is a growing reality with the proliferation of guns of all forms.

I go not advocate extreme forms of gun control, .but the current trend is devastating to American society.

wanna issue golf clubs as standard weapons....?
that video of armed assault was convincing

and yes....any assault.....with any weapon......
is armed assault

Have any idea how bad it can be with a machete?
saw a photo of a man about to kill another ......blade raised high

a rather disturbing image

and if you were there......would you not need a firearm on your person to stop such a thing?

 

[Thief]

oh.....btw.....

Caine likely killed his brother.....with a rock

 

[shunyadragon]

wanna issue golf clubs as standard weapons....?
that video of armed assault was convincing

and yes....any assault.....with any weapon......
is armed assault

Have any idea how bad it can be with a machete?
saw a photo of a man about to kill another ......blade raised high

a rather disturbing image

and if you were there......would you not need a firearm on your person to stop such a thing?

Smearing the reality of gun violence. The violence due to rocks, gulf clubs, or machetes would not be remotely comparable of the violence of guns in our society. We are no longer in the Stone Age, and very very few humans are murdered with either rocks, golf clubs, nor machetes. With the exception of the murder of relatives or friends. The hundreds if not thousands killed at schools, places of work and commerce were not slaughtered with rocks and machetes.

Can you imagine the outcome of attacking a school, restaurant or business with golf clubs?

Military assault weapons are specifically defined and designed to kill humans in battle. The ammunition is specifically designed to do the maximum amount of damage when used for the purpose they were designed.

 

[Valjean]

excuse my naivete .....

conservative....as in maintaining a law long held?

No, as in rolling back civil liberties and consumer protections put in place after the laissez-faire gilded age crashed the economy back in '29.

so you prefer to watch as your freedoms wash away.....one at a time

they are intertwined
lose one.....and the whole thing will unravel

But the greatest threat to our freedom today is the paranoid police-surveillance state our military imperialism has created, enabling billionaire oligarchs and their conservative congressional lackeys to quietly roll back the New Deal and Great Society policies that created America's golden age of freedom and prosperity. It's the conservatives who are relinquishing freedom for a false security, and it's they who created the sense of fear and sense of imminent danger that enabled the paranoia that's gripped America.

how about the guy that took a beating with a nine iron?

In the US he might have been shot with a nine mm.
It's a bit of a vicious circle. An armed public creates armed malefactors creates the need for an armed public &/or police state.

think maybe having his attacker shot at that moment would be a relief?....a good thing?

The least loss of life would probably be the best thing. Firefights tend to produce casualties.

strife is here already

may it not bother to knock on my door

Look to the cause of the strife. You may find you're being played.

 

[leibowde84]

This country is practically begging for the chains of slavery. In many ancient societies only slaves were unarmed. People should soberly consider this fact before abandoning the liberties that have been secured for them by the blood of patriots.

Nobody is talking about disarming America. This thread is about increased gun control, not taking all guns away. Please keep on topic.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

In the article, David Frum, who is one of the last genuinely moderate Republicans in the country, does not propose any specific solution to the gun problem in America. That's not his point. His point is that change is coming -- slowly -- but coming.

With that in mind, do you think the minority of people in favor of maintaining the status quo when it comes to guns will be able to do so forever? Or do you agree with Frum that change is coming?

I don't think that the solution is as easy as so many liberals think. There are many reasons to think twice about extreme gun control. For instance, consider that Chicago has the strictest gun laws of any U.S. city, and also has the highest murder rate. Also, consider the way the black market for illegal drugs has developed, and think about the danger of a black market for weapons (hint: only criminals would have guns, while law-abiding citizens who could prevent mass shootings would remain unarmed). Also, many advocates of gun control point to countries that enacted gun control and saw a reduction in gun violence. Yet they fail to mention that Honduras and Mexico, countries that ban citizens from owning guns have some of the highest homicide rates in the world, while Switzerland, a country where 1/2 of citizens own guns, has the lowest homicide rate in the world. Also (and this is purely speculative), think of how Europe could be different if gun control was less strict. There is a good possibility that the Holocaust and Armenian genocide could have been prevented if citizens were armed. I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but I do think the Nazis would have been more reluctant to go door-to-door looking for Jews if they knew that the Jews could fight back.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nobody is talking about disarming America. This thread is about increased gun control, not taking all guns away. Please keep on topic.

Actually the response from the right wing militant gun advocates is that any form of 'gun control' is the slippery slope to complete disarmament of all civilians of the USA.

 

[metis]

yes....

and shortly after.....America will be disarmed

and invaded

first rule of occupation.....disarm the public

That's nonsense as this is not what's being suggested.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think that the solution is as easy as so many liberals think. There are many reasons to think twice about extreme gun control.

"Extreme"? As in the near absence of control that currently exists in the USA? That is certainly extreme.

For instance, consider that Chicago has the strictest gun laws of any U.S. city, and also has the highest murder rate. Also, consider the way the black market for illegal drugs has developed, and think about the danger of a black market for weapons (hint: only criminals would have guns, while law-abiding citizens who could prevent mass shootings would remain unarmed).

There is a lot wishful thinking operating in what you say here. People running around carrying weapons does not lead to security or safety, particularly if they are not in an environment that expects them to be trained and responsible for what they do with those weapons.

Also, many advocates of gun control point to countries that enacted gun control and saw a reduction in gun violence. Yet they fail to mention that Honduras and Mexico, countries that ban citizens from owning guns have some of the highest homicide rates in the world, while Switzerland, a country where 1/2 of citizens own guns, has the lowest homicide rate in the world. Also (and this is purely speculative), think of how Europe could be different if gun control was less strict. There is a good possibility that the Holocaust and Armenian genocide could have been prevented if citizens were armed. I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but I do think the Nazis would have been more reluctant to go door-to-door looking for Jews if they knew that the Jews could fight back.

You know, I can't help but wonder if this kind of discourse is tongue-in-cheek.

 

[Quetzal]

CDC? Really?

Yes. They record and study causes of death. Firearms needs to be one of those points. They have limitations on the data they can gather. That needs to be lifted.

Yes, you are vague.

You are going to have to forgive me. I do not have the time to become a subject matter expert on gun legislation. There is no consistency, there is no standard. That is what makes this so hard to learn about. Couple that with the political noise that is there to deliberately derail this discussion and you have a mess. There is a significant lack of data due to political red tape and that is my primary concern. We need an organization that has the facilities, man power, and technology to do this. The CDC is already setup for this, it makes the most sense.

 

[Quetzal]

Please explain how law's in one state governing firearms directly affect another states laws.

If one state has a law against a specific firearm but a neighboring state does not, what is to prevent someone from going there to make a purchase?

 

[Quetzal]

so you prefer to watch as your freedoms wash away.....one at a time

they are intertwined
lose one.....and the whole thing will unravel

160+ countries have "freedom" and some of those countries outlawed firearms. They are doing fine last I checked.

 

[metis]

If one state has a law against a specific firearm but a neighboring state does not, what is to prevent someone from going there to make a purchase?

The chief of police in Chicago said that most of the guns illegally used in Chicago were purchased in Indiana whereas the gun laws are looser, and the chief of police in NYC echoed much the same there.

 

[esmith]

If one state has a law against a specific firearm but a neighboring state does not, what is to prevent someone from going there to make a purchase?

I really don't like to keep saying this, but I highly suggest that you, and everyone else, do a little research before making statements about firearm law which are inaccurate , as yours in the above statement.

A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes. In addition the firearm must be transferred to a licensed dealer in the purchasers state.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]
Also
An unlicensed person who is not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms may purchase a firearm from an out–of–State source, provided the transfer takes place through a Federal firearms licensee in his or her State of residence.
[18 U.S.C 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3); 27 CFR 478.29]
Note this includes transfers between unlicensed persons.

Now would you like to try again

The chief of police in Chicago said that most of the guns illegally used in Chicago were purchased in Indiana whereas the gun laws are looser, and the chief of police in NYC echoed much the same there

Obviously the chief of police in Chicago and NYC and you and others do not know federal laws
Want to try again @metis


above information from: Unlicensed Persons | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

 

[Quetzal]

I really don't like to keep saying this, but I highly suggest that you, and everyone else, do a little research before making statements about firearm law which are inaccurate , as yours in the above statement.

A person may only acquire a firearm within the person’s own State, except that he or she may purchase or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides. A person may borrow or rent a firearm in any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes. In addition the firearm must be transferred to a licensed dealer in the purchasers state.
[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]
Also
An unlicensed person who is not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms may purchase a firearm from an out–of–State source, provided the transfer takes place through a Federal firearms licensee in his or her State of residence.
[18 U.S.C 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3); 27 CFR 478.29]
Note this includes transfers between unlicensed persons.

Now would you like to try again


Obviously the chief of police in Chicago and NYC and you and others do not know federal laws
Want to try again @metis


above information from: Unlicensed Persons | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

You missed my point but that wasn't your interest anyway. I want consistency. Leaving that to state legislation is not the way to make that happen.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

yes....

and shortly after.....America will be disarmed

and invaded

first rule of occupation.....disarm the public

As as happened in every other country with gun control. Oh wait. No ot hasn't.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You don't want to make it easy for them. That usually doesn't end well. Besides you would have to expect that at least some of the American military would know who to side with. Anyway we could only hope. But without weapons we definitely have no chance.

If you're relying on the military to save you from the imposition of "tyranny ", you don't need to be armed any way.

Hey, I'm a gun owner and user, but the idea that guns somehow make you magically immune to heavy handed government, foreign invasion or random violence is ridiculous, and frankly, I suspect, responsible for a great deal of tragedy.

 

[Altfish]

8 Things blamed for mass murder that are not guns...

1. Drugs
2. Abortion
3. The Media
4. Mental Health
5. Schools
6. Doors
7. Backpacks
8. Video Games

https://www.indy100.com/article/us-mass-shooting-reason-gun-control-mental-health-parents-8362746

My only surprise is that Liberals and Atheists are not listed.

 

[tytlyf]

If people left their guns at home for protection, they wouldn't have people stealing them, finding them in bathrooms, accidental killings, etc.

It's a pretty simple concept.

More guns = more gun violence. More gun sales = more irresponsible gun owners allowing people to obtain them.

Gun violence will only continue getting worse due to quantity.