Missouri Republicans vote 104-39 to reject open-carry amendment

[Curious George]

I am not sure why this thread has gon down so many hyperbolic hypotheticals.

A bi-partisan group created the language, MO house republicans felt that the law as written needlessly imposed on the right to bear arms.

 

[F1fan]

You really aren't understanding what I'm writing, are you?

PERSON A: "Why should we put restrictions on things that are dangerous?"
PERSON B: "To make them potentially less dangerous."
PERSON A: "But some people still die. Look at these statistics."
PERSON B: "So? They're still being made less dangerous."
PERSON A: "BUT SOME PEOPLE STILL DIE. LOOK AT THESE STATISTICS."

I mean, I'm finding it hard to believe I'm having this discussion. Are you twelve?

Because if you are driving a car that has safety features that weill increase your chance of surviving a head on collisoon with a drunk driver then that is a very appealing thing. I see a great deal of advertising of safety ratings of certain cars. Not everyone is indifferent to their life and safety.

This includes many kids attending schools feeling a great deal of anxiety and fear from shootings by their peers. If there was as much mental health cares along side the ease of getting guns we would surely be a more stable nation with fewer gun related deaths.

 

[Altfish]

What does alcohol have to do with squirrel hunting?

Alcohol in most instances is safer than guns BUT is more controlled

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I don't need to tell you where I am. Its one of those 16 states.... Which should be obvious

Cool. Well here in Missouri, a 17 year old cannot drive alone, but they can carry around any gun unsupervised. Make it make sense.

And before you bluster and sputter about squirrel hunting, I remind you again that it's not the 80's anymore, times have changed, and you are willfully ignoring the point.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you or do you not agree that the reason we put numerous restrictions on driving is to reduce the likelihood and occurrence of accidents, injuries and deaths associated with driving? Yes or no?

I'm sure you've encountered this frequently on RF. You ask a question, don't get an answer, ask again, are ignored again, and it goes on without resolution for as long as one allows it. You're left to wonder if they are unable to see and understand question marks, if they forgot the question was there (every time) between reading the question and answering it, if they're maliciously trolling you, if they realize that their position is indefensible but can't admit as much, or maybe something else I haven't thought of, but it really doesn't matter which it is, and none of it is acceptable. I can imagine dealing with each of these types in succession and it wouldn't matter which was which. Which are you dealing with now? Who knows? And like I said, it doesn't matter.

Still, there's a tendency for us all to TRY to get cooperation in the assumption that this other person would if they could, and it's just a matter of finding the right words to get through. But we see that's rarely if ever the case. When does the other guy say on the fourth or fifth try that he suddenly understands and provides a responsive reply? Never for me.

So, I modified my approach. I put an end to it after one or at most two asks by answering the question for the other guy. In this case, I would just say that I believe his answer yes, offer him a chance to disagree if he does, let him know that his silence is deemed tacit agreement, and move forward. Why put yourself through this?

 

[Wildswanderer]

So you don't understand the difference between a private farm and a national park?

In reference to hunting, no I don't. The same safety standards apply.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Cool. Well here in Missouri, a 17 year old cannot drive alone, but they can carry around any gun unsupervised. Make it make sense.

And before you bluster and sputter about squirrel hunting, I remind you again that it's not the 80's anymore, times have changed, and you are willfully ignoring the point.

What does the 80s have to do with this conversation?
And it sounds like you have weird driving laws.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You aren't reading very well. Its legal for a 17 year old to go squirrel hunting.

You've written that often enough by now, do you mind if I ask you a question? Is squirrel hunting the only reason to carry a gun? And are they only carried in national forests? Because I understand it, the bill in questions mentions neither of those things, so unless they are to be "read in" somehow, open carry would be permitted in urban settings as well.

 

[metis]

Coming hot on the heels of rulings cracking down on the SCANDOLOUS dress coats worn by Congresswomen and the HIGHLY DANGEROUS drag shows, House Republicans just voted 104-39 to reject an amendment to state law that would prohibit minors from being able to open-carry a firearm on public land without adult supervision. Which currently, minors are not prohibited from openly carrying a firearm in public spaces, only owning one.

Man. Dragshows and Dresscoats kept me up enough at night (/s), but now some angry 12 year old with an AR-15? Eh, we'll burn that bridge when we get to it.

So many Pubs have shown time and time again that they love their guns far more than America's children and innocent adults.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You really aren't understanding what I'm writing, are you?

PERSON A: "Why should we put restrictions on things that are dangerous?"
PERSON B: "To make them potentially less dangerous."
PERSON A: "But some people still die. Look at these statistics."
PERSON B: "So? They're still being made less dangerous."
PERSON A: "BUT SOME PEOPLE STILL DIE. LOOK AT THESE STATISTICS."

I mean, I'm finding it hard to believe I'm having this discussion. Are you twelve?

Because if you are driving a car that has safety features that weill increase your chance of surviving a head on collisoon with a drunk driver then that is a very appealing thing. I see a great deal of advertising of safety ratings of certain cars. Not everyone is indifferent to their life and safety.

This includes many kids attending schools feeling a great deal of anxiety and fear from shootings by their peers. If there was as much mental health cares along side the ease of getting guns we would surely be a more stable nation with fewer gun related deaths.

It's kinda strange, isn't it, that in @ImmortalFlame's argument, the use of the very loose phrase "some people still die" is mentioned along with "statistics," which in fact aren't clarified. Such arguments are only useful when you provide some clarity, like "what percentage reduction in deaths can be shown to be directly related to these restrictions."

 

[Revoltingest]

Alcohol in most instances is safer than guns BUT is more controlled

Regarding control, not so in Ameristan.
Alcohol is sold in far more places,
with only a requirement to be over 21.
Control over guns varies by type.

 

[John53]

No need for the lecture.

True, it was a waste of time. Still just a "bin chicken".

My father was a bird breeder. He had a whole collection of various species under his care
I grew up around various bird species and I understand the biological necessity of them all.
(We actually had French finches, white doves and various cockatiels, mainly. A few others crept into our care over the years. So our birds weren’t exactly native. Not entirely anyway.)
I don’t really mean any ill will towards our “bin chicken.”
It’s all just fun and games to me, at the end of the day.
Besides I’m a born Hindu and I grew up in what we call a “Sai Baba family.”
To harm an animal is considered a grave “sin” in my community. More or less

 

[SomeRandom]

True, it was a waste of time. Still just a "bin chicken".

Ahh the bin chicken ain’t so bad.
There’s one near me with a crook leg but he’s managed to survive for a long time. I’ve tried to get a vet to look at it, but he always disappears for days whenever I put in a call

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

What does the 80s have to do with this conversation?

Apparently a lot, given rationale is able to be thrown completely through the window because of how things were done "back in my day".

 

[F1fan]

It's kinda strange, isn't it, that in @ImmortalFlame's argument, the use of the very loose phrase "some people still die" is mentioned along with "statistics," which in fact aren't clarified. Such arguments are only useful when you provide some clarity, like "what percentage reduction in deaths can be shown to be directly related to these restrictions."

I have to wonder what conservatives have against safety and being responsible, and then advocate for more access to guns (for personal safety) which requires a degree of responsibility they are afraid doesn't exist in society (because they need guns for safety), but then the reject that social responsibility that's creating safety measures by the government and producers. It's the "running with knives" crew that have little consistency and make no sense.

 

[We Never Know]

Your arguments make no sense.

My "exactly" wasn't an argument. Its an agreement to this "We do things to make a thing more safe but even if we do sometimes accidents happen anyway"

So you don't think requiring supervision for minors with guns on national parks may reduce gun-related deaths or accidents?

Again I think the 17 year old is responsible enough to go squirrel hunting on his own.
Btw, how many deaths happen from hunting on posted designated public land?

I'm fairly certain there are already laws in place about giving weapons to five year olds.

Are you under the impression that it's legal to give an active grenade to a five year old?

I believe owning a grenade is illegal..
Again common sense.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have to wonder what conservatives have against safety and being responsible, and then advocate for more access to guns (for personal safety) which requires a degree of responsibility they are afraid doesn't exist in society (because they need guns for safety), but then the reject that social responsibility that's creating safety measures by the government and producers. It's the "running with knives" crew that have little consistency and make no sense.

This whole idea of "we need guns for safety" drives me crazy. Let's you and I pose a question to everybody:

"Do you know anybody -- or do you know of anybody -- who you would not feel safe around if they had a gun?"

Let me tell you, I've been around a long time, and I have known many people that I would have actively stayed far away from if I thought they were armed. Fortunately, in Canada, there are far, far fewer armed people wandering around than in the US.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you know anybody -- or do you know of anybody -- who you would not feel safe around if they had a gun?"

Of course!! That is why I need one

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just in case. Of course I was kidding in my last post. Because there are people that I would not feel safe around if they had a gun is why we need laws that control gun ownership. State, or even worse city laws will not do it. Any meaningful gun control has to be done on a national basis.

 

[We Never Know]

You've written that often enough by now, do you mind if I ask you a question? Is squirrel hunting the only reason to carry a gun? And are they only carried in national forests? Because I understand it, the bill in questions mentions neither of those things, so unless they are to be "read in" somehow, open carry would be permitted in urban settings as well.

From the OP.... "prohibit minors from being able to open-carry a firearm on public land without adult supervision"

National forests are public land. Malls, walmart, lowes, etc are not.