That is hysterical "Americans smart enough" and "political will" in the same sentence, I never expected to see those in the same sentence. That's got to be an Oxymoron.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
That is hysterical "Americans smart enough" and "political will" in the same sentence, I never expected to see those in the same sentence. That's got to be an Oxymoron.
Kuzcotopia
If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
The article is actually about legally owned Guns.
I suppose one could say that Brazil, S Africa & some others aren't "developed".
But one would be wrong.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
All gun and ammunition purchases should be monitored and tracked. So when someone starts stockpiling ammo it sets off some red flags. Ammunition itself should have identifying marks, just like guns have serial numbers. A psychological evaluation should be required for all related purchases. The fact is, if we started to gather more data on who is buying guns, how much they are buying and what the psychological evaluation tells us we can start identifying red flags for this. There is also no reason for one person to own enough arms to equip a small army.
Last edited:
Not by much and there are Far more cars so the percentages are lower, but I would love a National Transportation system and willingly give up my car for one.
edit: Checked the numbers There are 300 millions guns in America and 253 million guns so the above statement is wrong but in usage cars by far have the advantage IMO.
Last edited:
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I was responding to the following question, which is clearly indicated in my post (plus some of my ideas address reducing the number of legal guns):
leibowde84
Veteran Member
I like this idea.
No simple solution, but there are questions that need to be addressed. (1) How do we keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people? Thankfully in Texas a good person had a firearm or the perp may have killed more. In this case the Air Force failed to put this nut in the system. (2) Does any civilian really need a 30 round magazine? I'm sure there are more ,but these two come to mind.
Kuzcotopia
If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
Brazil is not considered "developed."
Developing country - Wikipedia
And South Africa, developed or not, had a lower rate of gun deaths than the US.
I watched Bowling for Columbine the Michael Moore documentary. It makes a very good argument that the problem is our media is sensationalized and that there are parts of our population stuck in deep economic stagnation and shrinkage. I think it is because our industries have rapidly changed and our news favors whatever is frightening and upsetting. Comparing the USA to Canada, the film points out that Canada has lots of guns just like we do yet does not have the same problems.
I disagree about Brazil.
Criminy, they hosted the Olympics last year.
They even have a space program.
Who is the wrong person? With all respect, you could be a wrong person to own a gun... Just pointing out the subjectiveness here. But given our long dialog on the matter, I do respect you as a responsible gun owner. I know there are other responsible gun owners out there besides you.
Almost everyone sees themselves as the right moral person to own a gun. That's because the 2nd amendment doesn't limit ownership and has been used to justify ownership almost as an innate right of humans. That is the culture being defined in the US and it all starts with the 2nd amendment.
I think responsible owners should still be able to own guns but they have to prove it. Other nations like Korea and Japan have very strict policies on owning guns. Ownership should not be a right. It should be a responsibility through extensive training and extensive evaluations. The argument of a bad guy can bypass this to own a gun is true but real-world statistics prove that this goes down as the number of guns go down. This argument is still true for other restrictive nations, it's just much more difficult for these bad buys to obtain these guns so the percentage is less. Again, statistics prove this.
On a tangent, I think ownership should be divided into purpose like hunting, sportsmanship, self-defense and so on... Each purpose has different restrictions on the gun type and how/where its stored. And there should be a division specifically to address the intent of the 2nd amendment. There should be organized militias, however, these militias own the guns and are responsible for their safe-keeping and operations.
The problem with this is that the CDC, the organization that is supposed to gather this data is not allowed any funding if they try to. Its called the Dickey Amendment and it blocks funding to the CDC if the data collected can promote or advocate gun control.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Why would you want to "...reduce the number of guns in private hands..." when it only takes one gun to wreak havoc on an unarmed crowd? Why not reduce all guns in private hands to zero? I'm sure every criminal and crazy will march right up to the nearest government facility and gladly turn his weapon in. I would turn my gun in as long as it's the last one on the pile.
So you advocate punishing law abiding citizens for the act of a few criminals and/or crazies?
So you advocate governmental gun confiscation and you feel this justifies your position?
Felons & the feeble minded.
This short list could be added to, but those immediately came to mind.
Sometimes, gun ownership is prohibited if someone files a PPO against the owner.
This shouldn't be automatic, but could be a basis, depending upon circumstances.
Things never go well when a sentence starts out with "With all respect....".
Just kidding!
But such a judgement wouldn't be made using only internet posts.
When I got my CCW license back in the 80s, I was evaluated by
a board assembled for that purpose. It's doable.
It can be made quite objective.
Flattery will get you everywhere!
I'm OK with assessment being made according to objective standards.
But since ownership is a right, & one not likely to go away any time soon, I
prefer addressing legally possible methods of reducing gun (& other violence).
I favor more training. I see benefit in it.
But I admit bias because I had much more than most.
There should certainly be different kinds of training for hunting v self defense.
Btw, I favor more training for anything potentially dangerous, eg, driving on roads.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Or a car that could reach speeds of 150 mph on the open highway...just sayin'. Where does it stop?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Funny you should mention that since cars are heavily regulated.
Semiautos and handguns are restricted and basically banned for most people in Canada. You require a special permit for certain handguns, let alone semiautos, and they're very hard to get. "Hunting" and "self-defense" generally aren't viewed as reason enough there.
This really isn't a media problem and I don't recall Bowling for Columbine making that argument. The movie was focused in America's obsession with guns/gun culture.